Loading ITAT cases…
53 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits and merely confirmed the AO's order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the registration under Section 12A was granted retrospectively, making the appeal on the same issue infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the core issue of the appeal, which was the rejection of registration, had been resolved in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)-NFAC should have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)-NFAC to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of a return before issuing a notice under Section 142(1) is not a valid ground to make an addition under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits as sale proceeds from his provision shop.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and source of cash deposits. The lower authorities rightly treated the deposits as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under Section 153A cannot be framed based on incriminating material seized from third-party premises without following the procedure under Section 153C. The assessment made under Section 153A was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the TDS was deducted by the employer, and the CPC did not consider this fully. The matter was remitted back to the AO to examine the TDS credit and relief under Section 89 with supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for objections before directing the AO to adopt the fair market value determined by the DVO. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities did not properly appreciate the assessee's submissions and case laws. It also noted that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to be heard before enhancing the addition. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Rs. 15,00,000 of the cash deposits were properly explained by the assessee, allowing a partial relief. For the TDS issue, the Tribunal ruled that Section 194-IA was not applicable as the consideration paid to each of the three joint owners was below the Rs. 50 Lakh threshold.
The Tribunal held that Rs. 15,00,000 of the cash deposits were properly explained by the assessee, allowing a partial relief. For the TDS issue, the Tribunal ruled that Section 194-IA was not applicable as the consideration paid to each of the three joint owners was below the Rs. 50 Lakh threshold.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide any material to support the claim that the assessee had applied for registration earlier. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the file back to the CIT(E) for re-examination of the case on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the cash deposits were explained by prior withdrawals for construction purposes, which were redeposited due to demonetization. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it in limine. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It then remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee as being out of recorded cash sales and collections from debtors, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had accepted the total turnover but incorrectly rejected the source of deposits during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that capital gains on conversion of capital asset to stock-in-trade are taxable in the year of sale of stock-in-trade. Consequently, investments for claiming deductions under sections 54B and 54F should be considered from the date of sale of stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the unsecured loan from Shri Ch. Anil Kumar, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition of Rs. 3,05,000 was deleted by a previous ITAT order, the penalty levied on such addition has no basis and must be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the unsecured loan from Shri Ch. Anil Kumar, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A)-NFAC. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the unsecured loan from Shri Ch. Anil Kumar, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the late filing of the tax audit report, when filed before the assessment order, constitutes a technical breach and penalty under Section 271B is not leviable, following the ratio of P. Senthil Kumar vs. Pr. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence without proper examination or calling for a remand report. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the grounds related to the limitation period for the assessment order and the inclusion of the cost of land in the capital gains computation. Therefore, these issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny concerning the re-computation of LTCG and rejection of indexed cost of construction. However, the addition of Rs. 36,22,000/- under Section 69A was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It dismissed grounds related to the scope of scrutiny and the disallowance of commission. However, it remanded the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for verification of day-to-day calculations.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting relief on a portion of the unexplained investment by accepting explanations for agricultural income and a loan from the brother. However, it upheld the estimation of business income at 5% of the stock put to sale.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4) was not applicable as the assessee had incurred losses and had no taxable income, thus no advance tax was payable. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as bank statements of lenders or their ITRs, to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed due to significant delay and misrepresentation of facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as bank statements of lenders or their ITRs, to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed due to significant delay and misrepresentation of facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as bank statements of lenders or their ITRs, to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed due to significant delay and misrepresentation of facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as bank statements of lenders or their ITRs, to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed due to significant delay and misrepresentation of facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. Considering the principles of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) to meet the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It was held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are met. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause. The appeal was admitted for further hearing.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when disallowance of expenditure is based on estimation, especially when the assessee has furnished details and there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that since no new capital asset of enduring nature was created and the expenditure was for a feasibility study in the same line of business, it should be treated as revenue expenditure. The addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal observed that while opportunities were provided, the assessee did not comply. However, to ensure principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present documentary evidence to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, as the assessee claimed to have filed additional evidence online.