Loading ITAT cases…
114 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26/04/2021 was invalid as it was issued after the prescribed date of 01/04/2021, citing Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26/04/2021 was invalid as it was issued after the prescribed date of 01/04/2021, citing Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the rental income was correctly treated as income from house property, as the lease agreements indicated the assessee owned buildings and was responsible for their upkeep. The addition under Section 69A was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee proved landholding, he failed to substantiate the generation of agricultural income with cogent evidence. The sale bills were unverifiable and linked to non-existent entities, and supporting documents for expenses were also not produced.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The matter requires fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) after allowing the assessee to submit all relevant documents and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was to be set aside. Regarding the rental income, it was held that the assessee was the owner of both the land and the building, and the income should be taxed under the head 'Income from house property'.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity for proper adjudication by remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring a fair hearing.
The Tribunal perused the materials on record and found that the nature of the trust's activities was 'Religious'. The objects were for the benefit of the Muslim community, including specific categories like Muslim students and patients. Since the appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence that expenditure was not confined to these specific groups, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. to prioritize substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by liberally construing the expression "sufficient cause". The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors. and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed under section 144 on a best judgement basis and that during appellate proceedings, the assessee provided details of the cash deposit. Considering the submissions and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the case was not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision regarding the nature of the land as agricultural on 01.04.1981 and the fair market value adopted, stating that the character of inherited land cannot be changed based on subsequent use. However, an additional ground regarding deduction under Section 54 was admitted and remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 521 days in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000 to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal was circumstantial and not mala fide, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and decided to restore the matter to the AO for a de-novo assessment, giving the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principles of substantial justice over technicalities and the reasonable cause explained by the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with an opportunity to represent their case.
The Tribunal noted that the core issue was whether the land qualified as rural agricultural land, excluded from the definition of capital asset. The assessee claimed it was 12 km from the municipal limit, while the revenue stated it was 4.27 km. Due to the appellant's inability to present an effective representation before the CIT(A) and to ensure substantial justice, the matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal noted that there was a delay of 233 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to the negligence of her former accountant and tax consultant, stating she had sufficient cause for not representing herself effectively before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence or satisfactory explanation regarding the source of cash payments and the discount received. The provisions of Section 69C are attracted as the expenditure and its source remained unexplained.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided multiple hearing notices but did not mention their proper service and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal found it pertinent to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The CIT(A) held that the power to condone the delay in filing Form-10B does not rest with the CIT(A) and that the assessee must approach the jurisdictional CIT or DIT. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the merit in the assessee's alternative contention, agreed with the CIT(A) that the delay in filing the audit report was not condonable by the CIT(A) and upheld the processing of the return.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and accepted that there was a 'sufficient cause' preventing proper representation due to a fire incident and subsequent business disruption. While the Revenue argued that the CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeal for non-cooperation, the Tribunal, following principles of natural justice and taking a lenient view, decided to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of substantial justice over technicalities and the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause for the delay and for being ex-parte before the CIT(A), condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, giving the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial delay but, referencing Supreme Court judgments on condonation of delay, emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay, considering the assessee's explanation as a sufficient cause.
For AY 2015-16, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2016-17, liberty was granted to the assessee to raise all grounds, including legal grounds, before the AO during the fresh assessment proceedings. For AY 2017-18, the decision for AY 2016-17 was applied mutatis mutandis, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were identical to the case of Narendra Maganlal Purohit Vs. DCIT, where the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was held to be barred by limitation and bad in law.
The Bench decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee to represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A), restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities of non-deliberate delay. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be reasonable and, therefore, condoned the delay.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, applying the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, as the assessee provided 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and to file any necessary condonation of delay application.
The Tribunal, taking a lenient view and considering a reasonable cause for the assessee's lack of effective representation, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one more opportunity to represent their case, with the condition of remaining cooperative and not seeking frivolous adjournments.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeals and the assessee's explanation, citing a previous consultant's failure to manage communications. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji, the Tribunal prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and condoned the delay.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not effectively represent her case before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. Considering the circumstances, the Bench decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent her case before the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal acknowledged that there was a reasonable cause preventing the assessee from effective representation before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding substantial justice over technicalities, condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity for hearing or a show cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the advances were recorded in the assessee's books of account and formed part of audited financial statements. Information from the recipient party's Form 3CD confirmed the party's identity and transaction traceability. Therefore, the condition for invoking Section 69A that the amount is not recorded in the books was not satisfied. The AO had not doubted the source of the amount advanced.
The Tribunal noted that the additions made were not based on the recorded reasons for reopening. Following the decision in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal held that the additions made under section 68 were incorrect.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not effectively representing themselves before the AO and CIT(A). Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A). To meet the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after one more opportunity of hearing. A cost of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that legal grounds can be raised at any stage, citing the Supreme Court's decision in NTPC V/s. CIT. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to raise the new legal ground. Since the ground required verification of records, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeals and the assessee's explanation, citing a previous consultant's failure to manage communications. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji, the Tribunal prioritized substantial justice over technicalities and condoned the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and accepted that there was a 'sufficient cause' preventing proper representation due to a fire incident and subsequent business disruption. While the Revenue argued that the CIT(A) was right in dismissing the appeal for non-cooperation, the Tribunal, following principles of natural justice and taking a lenient view, decided to grant one more opportunity.
For AY 2015-16, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2016-17, liberty was granted to the assessee to raise all grounds, including legal grounds, before the AO during the fresh assessment proceedings. For AY 2017-18, the decision for AY 2016-17 was applied mutatis mutandis, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance before the lower authorities. It was noted that the transactions were alleged to be without the assessee's consent due to a broker's actions, and the assessee was also unavailable to provide directions.
For AY 2015-16, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2016-17, liberty was granted to the assessee to raise all grounds, including legal grounds, before the AO during the fresh assessment proceedings. For AY 2017-18, the decision for AY 2016-17 was applied mutatis mutandis, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.