Loading ITAT cases…
11 tribunal orders from the Agra bench in 2020.
Showing 11 of 11 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted solely as a PoA holder and not as the owner of the property. Therefore, the capital gains could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee, and the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s order was silent on the specific charitable activities carried out by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) to re-examine the evidence of the assessee's own charitable activities and their impact, as well as the contributions to other trusts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary applications. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without a proper hearing and without considering the merits of the case violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was illegal and arbitrary due to the defective show cause notice, following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court and its own coordinate bench. However, it allowed the revenue to seek restoration if the Supreme Court decides the issue in its favor.
The Tribunal held that an appeal lies to the CIT(A) against an intimation issued by the CPC under section 143(1) if the assessee denies their liability. The CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the violation of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with directions to provide all relied-upon documents and grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the violation of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with directions to provide all relied-upon documents and grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the payee had offered the income and paid taxes, and the technical objection regarding the filing of Form 26A was overcome. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for freight, truck running, repair, maintenance, and depreciation expenses, finding sufficient evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard and present documents. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a decision on merits. The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was still pending before the First Appellate Authority.