Loading ITAT cases…
49 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's order setting aside the AO's assessment was not justified. The AO had conducted detailed inquiries and applied his mind before allowing the freehold conversion charges as cost of improvement.
The assessee stated that they no longer wished to pursue the appeals as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee stated that they no longer wished to pursue the appeals as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee stated that they no longer wished to pursue the appeals as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee stated that they no longer wished to pursue the appeals as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee stated that they no longer wished to pursue the appeals as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee stated that they no longer wished to pursue the appeals as the dispute was being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case and produce evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer was aware of the assessee's change of address and that the CIT(A) had not verified the records. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidence and the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of short withdrawal for household expenditure was not justified. The assessee had shown reasonable cash withdrawals from the bank, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while seized documents cannot be accepted in part, the addition for unexplained expenditure should only be for the differential amount. The assessee had recorded Rs. 1,10,000/- under a similar head in its books, leaving a difference of Rs. 28,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not pressed the issue of notice validity before the CIT(A). However, it found that the Assessing Officer had made additions based on bank deposits without considering withdrawals. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had objectively considered the assessee's explanation for the delay. The Assessing Officer's order was non-speaking regarding the explanation, and the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had objectively considered the assessee's explanation for the delayed audit report. The Assessing Officer's order was non-speaking regarding the explanation, and the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed no contractual agreement existed, the issuance of a transporter's bill constitutes a contract. However, it also acknowledged the assessee's submission that no disallowance was made for similar payments in AY 2014-15. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of this fact.
The Tribunal held that if the loan was introduced in the preceding year and accepted then, it cannot be treated as bogus for the current year. The CIT(A) failed to examine this explanation. Therefore, the issue of the unsecured loan is remanded to the CIT(A) for verification.
The Tribunal held that repeated notices seeking the same information constitute a single default. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) should be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order ex-parte without giving the assessee further opportunities to show cause or furnish details. Therefore, the penalty appeal should be decided after the quantum appeal is adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the quantum appeals. Given that the bank accounts were joint and the husband's case was also under consideration, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after deciding the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper analysis of the assessee's contentions. The assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the competent authority had issued Form No.3, the appeal was not maintainable.
The tribunal held that the appeal is not valid as Vijaya Bank no longer exists and the successor bank (Bank of Baroda) has not been substituted. The procedure for substitution under Rule 26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 was not followed.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the tax liabilities were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and their application was considered by the Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not discuss the assessee's contentions or analyze the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were granted, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for and been approved under the VSVS scheme. The Revenue also confirmed this fact. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made the addition without properly considering the documentary evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the issue of unexplained cash credit was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The validity of the assessment notice under Section 143(2) was also remanded for similar verification.
The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were granted, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee. The issue concerning freight charges was also restored to the AO for limited verification of facts.
The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were granted, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not sustainable in law as it was not a speaking order deciding the appeal on merits. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's estimation of 5% NP was arbitrary. It found that the comparative cases presented by the assessee showed NP rates below 2%, making the assessee's offered 2% NP reasonable and in line with prevailing market rates.
The Tribunal restored the issue of purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee. The issue concerning freight charges was also restored to the AO for limited verification of facts.
The Tribunal restored the issue of purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee. The issue concerning freight charges was also restored to the AO for limited verification of facts.
The Tribunal restored the issue of purchases to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee. The issue concerning freight charges was also restored to the AO for limited verification of facts.
The Tribunal noted that while opportunities were granted, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme to settle disputes. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.