Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and evidence regarding its activities, financial transactions, and the cancellation of its nursing college affiliation, which did not affect its hospital operations.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal stating that they had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The Tribunal held that revisionary orders under Section 263 are unsustainable if they do not contain categorical findings on merits, even if the show-cause notices were not responded to by the assessees. The assessment must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the appeals. The matters were restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had indeed conducted a detailed inquiry into the salary expenditure, issuing a notice under Section 142(1) and receiving a reply, along with supporting documents. Therefore, the PCIT's revision direction was not justified.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The Tribunal held that revisionary orders under Section 263 are unsustainable if they do not contain categorical findings on merits, demonstrating that the assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Merely issuing a show-cause notice that goes un-responded is insufficient.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's revision orders were unsustainable because they lacked categorical findings on the merits of the case. The mere fact that show-cause notices were un-responded to by the assessees was not sufficient to warrant revision.
The assessee had submitted Form 1 & 2 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, but Form 4 had not been issued by the prescribed authority. The Revenue did not dispute the assessee's averments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and certain forms were not yet issued by the prescribed authority. The Revenue did not dispute these averments.
Since the assessee did not appear and the Revenue did not dispute the averments made by the assessee, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte. The appeal was considered as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application and the Revenue not disputing this fact.
Since the consequential assessment order has been settled under VSVS, the subject appeal has become academic and therefore, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's averments regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime. It was decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim without considering the Wealth Tax Return. The Tribunal held that the Wealth Tax Return, filed before demonetization, explained the source of the deposit, and therefore the addition was arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings. Several judicial precedents were cited in support of this view.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime.
The Tribunal held that an inadvertent mistake in filing the Income Tax Return form should not vitiate the claim. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to verify the claim under the correct section.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, and considering the principles of natural justice, it was decided to provide another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside and restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 227 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, considering the period of delay falling within the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication issues in the faceless regime, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the VSVS scheme and sought to have the appeal treated as 'Not Pressed'. The Revenue did not dispute this.
The Tribunal noted the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime. It was decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that both the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders, and the assessee has now come forward to explain their case with additional evidence. The Tribunal clarified that they have not commented on the merits of the issues.
The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the impugned order and the assessee's request for a further hearing. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's artificial bifurcation of credit entries was unjustified as all receipts appeared to be business receipts. The Assessing Officer was directed to estimate business income at 8% on the entire credits.
The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Sunil Kumar Agarwal's case, accepted the assessee's prayer for valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The assessment was restored to the AO for re-framing after obtaining DVO's valuation.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not dispute the averments made by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue did not dispute this averment. Therefore, the appeal was considered as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that for transactions prior to 01.04.2017, the rate of tax is not 60% as per the Madras High Court ruling in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Therefore, the nature of the transaction becomes immaterial, and it should be subjected to the normal rate of tax.
The Tribunal held that if the AO accepts that the items for which reasons were recorded have not escaped assessment, it implies a lack of "reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment", rendering the notice invalid and without jurisdiction to assess any other income. Since no addition was made on the basis of the reopening's grounds, the reopening fails.