Loading ITAT cases…
134 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice over technicalities. It held that the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years was obtained from the incorrect authority (Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner), rendering the notice under Section 148 invalid.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented repayments of advances previously given through banking channels. Since these advances were already accounted for and taxed, treating the repayments as unexplained income would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was devoid of merit. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence, and the AO failed to establish any money trail or provide opportunities for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible time limits prescribed by law and Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible time limits prescribed by law and Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposit with documentary evidence of opening cash balance and subsequent cash flows. The AO had not pointed out any specific defects or brought contrary material on record to dislodge the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice over technicalities. It held that the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years was obtained from the incorrect authority (Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner), rendering the notice under Section 148 invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders by providing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, and bank statements. The Tribunal found that Vishnu Traders and Vinayak Traders were merely conduits for payments from the actual lenders, who were relatives of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had sufficient funds and had provided some evidence, certain documents were self-serving. Therefore, the entire addition was not deleted, but a partial relief was granted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in re-opening the assessment and making an addition of Rs. 18,80,050/-. The CIT(A) also erred in confirming this action.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a small trader dealing in a cash-oriented business. It was held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions for both expenditure and estimated profit on the same item, as it would lead to double taxation. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without a foundational quantum assessment order determining the concealed income. Since no such determination was made, the penalties are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's premise that the assessee had not disclosed cash-in-hand in previous years was factually incorrect. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including cash flow statements and cash ledger, to explain the source of the deposit.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred by 51 days, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was obtained from the incorrect authority, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found factual inconsistencies in the AO's order regarding the nature of transactions and the entities involved. It noted that the material relied upon for re-opening was not fully furnished to the assessee, denying them an effective opportunity to explain.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for rebate under Section 87A even if the income includes short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A, as there is no express bar in the relevant sections. The denial by the CPC was based on system logic, not statutory mandate.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, consider the submissions and documents, and pass an appropriate order.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's request for DVO reference under Section 50C(2) and pass a fresh speaking order.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had set aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the AO. The assessee's appeal challenging the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's failure to receive notices due to an incorrect email address being used by the CIT(A). The AO was directed to adjudicate afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that while the purchases might be questionable, a 100% addition was not justified. The addition was restricted to 6% of the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on surmises, as the assessee had provided a complete reconciliation of stamp paper purchases and sales, including other items sold. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that while the purchases might be questionable, a 100% addition was not justified. The addition was restricted to 6% of the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal accepted the opening cash balance and cash withdrawals from the assessee's bank accounts as valid sources for the deposits. However, the claim for cash advances for land sale and refund of advance upon cancellation were rejected due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the failure to appreciate that the bank account was disclosed in the original assessment and that the initial assessment was under Section 143(3), not 143(1). The Tribunal found the reassessment to be based on erroneous assumptions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, stating the assessee did not respond to notices. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's calculated GP/NP rate of 1.75% if more accurate and remanded the matter for proper verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing contract notes, demat statements, and bank statements. The Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings or demonstrate perversity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider Form 10B and grant benefits accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, but the addition of 100% of purchases was excessive. It directed that only 6% of the purchases should be considered as bogus, aligning with a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was trade discount received as a resale agent, which was explained. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified as the assessee had provided evidence of its income source.
The Tribunal held that the CPC did not have the power to disallow the deduction under Section 80P at the time of processing under Section 143(1) for the assessment years in question (prior to April 1, 2021). The assessee was entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CPC did not have the power to disallow the deduction under Section 80P at the time of processing under Section 143(1) for the assessment years in question (prior to April 1, 2021). The assessee was entitled to the deduction.