Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the rejection was on technical grounds and the assessee should have been allowed to rectify the application. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) to consider the application on merits after rectification.
The Tribunal held that the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee regarding the sources of cash deposits, including confirmations from his father and wife, was not properly examined by the lower authorities. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application on technical grounds without considering the merits was incorrect. The assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error in filing under the wrong section was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the rejection on technical grounds without considering the merits was incorrect. The assessee should have been allowed to rectify the application, and the matter should be considered on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not properly claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) in its return. However, it held that the gross receipts could not be taxed directly and directed the AO to determine the income on a commercial basis after allowing for expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the initial admission under Section 132(4) is important but rebuttable. Since the assessee provided evidence to rebut the AO's and CIT(A)'s estimations, a reasonable profit needed to be estimated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to file a revised return to withdraw the income surrendered in the original return, as there was no basis for such surrender. The additions made by the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing the appeals before the lower authorities. Citing Supreme Court judgments on limitation, the Tribunal found no reason to condone the delays.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid as incriminating material was found. However, additions for interest paid in cash could not be sustained solely on third-party evidence without corroboration, especially when denied by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO was invalid as it provided less than the mandatory minimum period of 7 days for the assessee to reply. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the reassessment order were vitiated.
The Tribunal found no basis for the Assessing Officer's estimation of construction costs and progress. It also noted that the assessee had explained the sources for purchasing a flat. However, the difference between sale consideration and fair market value for a property was correctly treated as income.
The Tribunal found no basis for the Assessing Officer's estimation of construction costs and progress. It also noted that the assessee had explained the sources for purchasing a flat. However, the difference between sale consideration and fair market value for a property was correctly treated as income.
The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB was defective because it did not specify the particular clause under which the penalty was proposed. This defect vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from an incorrect authority, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The ITAT held that while the CIT(A) was justified in proceeding ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance, the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) should have passed a reasoned order addressing the assessee's grounds.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of loose sheets found during a survey without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the addition for the difference between physical and book stock due to lack of explanation from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the assessment order does not record the necessary satisfaction for their initiation. The subsequent initiation of penalty proceedings by another authority cannot cure this fundamental defect.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed objections before the DRP, the time limit under Section 144C(13) was applicable and the assessment order was within limits. However, the Tribunal found that the AO erred in applying the amended rate of tax under Section 115BBE, directing the AO to compute tax at the pre-amendment rate of 30%.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the assessee's reconciliation of the difference, and the CIT(A) had also passed a cryptic order without considering the submissions. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach to condone the delay, considering the assessee's medical condition supported by a certificate. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, necessitating a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying Section 69C for disallowing commission expenses claimed against capital gains. The disallowance should have resulted in an enhancement of capital gains, not an addition under Section 69C.
The Tribunal held that the initial admission under Section 132(4) is important but rebuttable. Since the assessee provided evidence to rebut the AO's and CIT(A)'s estimations, a reasonable profit needed to be estimated.
The Tribunal held that the initial admission under Section 132(4) is important but rebuttable. Since the assessee provided evidence to rebut the AO's and CIT(A)'s estimations, a reasonable profit needed to be estimated.
The Tribunal held that the initial admission under Section 132(4) is important but rebuttable. Since the assessee provided evidence to rebut the AO's and CIT(A)'s estimations, a reasonable profit needed to be estimated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach to condone the delay, considering the assessee's medical condition supported by a certificate. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal considered the various grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, focusing on whether the JDA cum GPA constituted a 'transfer' for capital gains tax purposes in the year of agreement execution. The Revenue argued for taxation based on the agreement date, citing various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting the assessee's adjournment application and disposing of the appeal ex parte without considering the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.