Loading ITAT cases…
101 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical issues. Considering that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee submitted additional evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction, following Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions regarding the validity of notices issued after specific dates.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present voluminous additional evidence. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is consequential to the quantum proceedings. Since the quantum proceedings have not attained finality, the penalty matter should also be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was inconsistent in treating unrecorded sales and cash sales differently. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit and VAT payment, supported by books of account, to be satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was not sustainable as the issue of the subsidy being a capital receipt was already considered and accepted in the original assessment under Section 143(3). The AO did not point out any tax evasion or escapement of income, indicating a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as no new capital was introduced by partners during the year; the increase in balances was due to profits, interest, and remuneration. The assessee's audit accounts supported this.
The Tribunal granted relief of Rs. 2,50,000/- based on CBDT instructions, sustaining the remaining addition. For the tax rate, the Tribunal followed the favorable view of the Madras High Court, holding that the pre-amended rate of 30% under Section 115BBE would apply.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to participate effectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, leading to an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 30.07.2022 was beyond the 'surviving time' as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' allowed by Supreme Court directions. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the factual position for the current assessment years was identical to an intermediary assessment year where the CIT(A) had already deleted the disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the factual position for the current assessment years was identical to an intermediary assessment year where the CIT(A) had already deleted the disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(1) by dismissing the appeals as belated without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(1) by dismissing the appeals as belated without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(1) by dismissing the appeals as belated without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' permitted by Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO treated cash deposits as business income twice, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were explained by earlier cash withdrawals from disclosed bank accounts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases. This was based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other similar cases, including those upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.
The Tribunal found that a Rojmel slip indicating a Rs. 2,00,000/- cash transaction with the assessee constituted tangible evidence. However, the AO's quantification of unaccounted purchases at Rs. 6,77,770/- lacked basis. The Tribunal treated Rs. 2,00,000/- as additional business turnover and sustained presumptive income thereon.
The Tribunal held that the opening WDV of the building block was correctly claimed by the assessee as per Section 50 of the Act. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction of brokerage expenses incurred for the sale of the property.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary details regarding the purchase and sale of shares, including bank statements and demat records. The AO failed to establish a direct link between the assessee's actions and any price manipulation, thus the addition was not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) should have been admitted. The CIT(A) was directed to admit these evidences and adjudicate the issues on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider that the amounts in question were unsecured loans from M/s. VRB Capital Services India Private Limited, not purchases. The assessee provided bank statements and confirmation from the creditor, which indicated the nature of the transactions as loans and interest, with TDS deducted.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider that the amounts in question were unsecured loans from M/s. VRB Capital Services India Private Limited, not purchases. The assessee provided bank statements and confirmation from the creditor, which indicated the nature of the transactions as loans and interest, with TDS deducted.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the CIT(A) could not survive as the original order it was based on had been set aside by the ITAT. The Tribunal accepted the consensus of both parties that the impugned order was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the proper jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as per CBDT instructions and a jurisdictional High Court ruling. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The appeal regarding Section 12AB registration was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee after the CIT(E) granted the registration. The appeal regarding Section 80G approval was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication as the basis for rejection (lack of 12AB registration) was no longer valid.
The appeal regarding Section 12AB registration was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee after the CIT(E) granted the registration. The appeal regarding Section 80G approval was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication as the basis for rejection (lack of 12AB registration) was no longer valid.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the proper jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as per CBDT instructions and a jurisdictional High Court ruling. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) overlooked the assessee's submissions and the fact that neither party's GST returns or books of accounts reflected the alleged transactions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable if the cash deposits are recorded in the books of accounts and the source of deposits is explained. The assessee had provided details and explained the nexus of cash deposits with gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land and not a capital asset, thus the addition for LTCG was not sustainable. For the compensation received for other assets, the Tribunal allowed a deduction for the cost of acquisition at 60% of the compensation amount.
The Tribunal noted that similar additions were made in other partners' cases and in previous years, with some deletions. Due to the pending appeal of the partnership firm and the ex-parte nature of the proceedings, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the assessee's reply and application for additional evidence. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly invoked Section 147 for reopening the assessment, dismissing the argument for Section 153A. However, the addition on account of 'on-money' was not sustained due to the lack of direct nexus with accommodation entries and the denial of cross-examination opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice and a bona fide reason for non-prosecution at the CIT(A) level. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that successive notices for identical issues constitute a single default, upholding a penalty of Rs. 20,000 and deleting the rest.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee subsequently wrote off these liabilities in a later assessment year. Therefore, the addition made in the current assessment year was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice and a bona fide reason for non-prosecution at the CIT(A) level. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that successive notices for identical issues constitute a single default, upholding a penalty of Rs. 20,000 and deleting the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that filing Form 15CA was not required due to the prevailing rules at the time. The amendment to Rule 37BB came into effect later, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while proportionate disallowance for personal use of motor cars is permissible, the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of labour charges without providing evidence to the assessee was not justified. The matter of labour charges was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had wrongly made additions twice and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans and capital contribution. The Tribunal noted that the evidence was available before the AO but not considered, and the CIT(A) rightly took cognizance of it.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is applicable only when money is not recorded in books of account. Since the cash deposits were explained with reference to the cash-in-hand reflected in the regularly maintained cash-book, and the Revenue failed to disprove the genuineness of these entries, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in interpreting the meaning of agricultural land under Section 10(37) and property under Section 56(2) read with Section 2(14). The Tribunal also found fault with the dismissal of the appellant's ground regarding non-reference to the DVO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee jointly owned one property and his father owned the other. The assessee's claim of rental income from the jointly owned property was genuine. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 are liable to be dropped.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had granted only one opportunity, which was insufficient. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more effective opportunity to substantiate their applications.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was void ab initio because the material used for reopening was dated 2023 and thus not relevant for AY 2020-21. The assessee's explanations regarding purchases and sales were also not considered.