Loading ITAT cases…
66 tribunal orders from the Allahabad bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 66 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery was explained based on CBDT instructions regarding married women's holdings. For the cash, it was found that a portion was from sari sales and should not have been added. For undisclosed stock, the addition was reduced as it was based on estimation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made compliance, albeit belatedly, by filing written submissions before the assessment order was framed. The delay was considered a bonafide reason due to the transition to digital assessment proceedings, making Section 273B applicable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to clearly specify the charge against the assessee, jumbling both 'concealed particulars' and 'furnished inaccurate particulars' without proper conjunctions or striking out inapplicable portions. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to clearly specify the charge against the assessee, jumbling both 'concealed particulars' and 'furnished inaccurate particulars' without proper conjunctions or striking out inapplicable portions. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they failed to clearly specify the charge against the assessee, jumbling both 'concealed particulars' and 'furnished inaccurate particulars' without proper conjunctions or striking out inapplicable portions. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. This was to verify the assessee's claim that a sale of a truck for Rs. 13,82,000/- should not be included in business receipts, which would bring the turnover below the threshold for audit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and that the grounds of appeal were not adjudicated in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to decide on merits. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the assessee had belatedly complied before the assessment order was finalized.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without complying with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires proper adjudication and hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to decide on merits. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the assessee had belatedly complied before the assessment order was finalized.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the merits was unsustainable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all relevant evidence to claim exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains on sale of shares.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the additions. The order was not in compliance with Section 250(6) as it lacked independent application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) to determine the fair market value. The disallowance of brokerage was also questioned.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the unpaid service tax and had not debited it to the Profit & Loss Account, the disallowance under Section 43B was not warranted. The Tribunal also partly allowed the appeal regarding travelling expenses.
The Tribunal found that the stamp papers for both deeds were issued on the same day and that the PAN was issued based on the May 13, 2013 deed. Therefore, the disallowance was considered flawed.
The Tribunal held that a statement made during a survey under Section 133A, without rejection of the assessee's subsequent explanation and without physical verification, cannot be the sole basis for addition. The assessee's explanation of estimation and inclusion of impure silver was considered plausible.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without application of mind and without providing reasons. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company Vs. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order, violating natural justice. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by law. The CIT(A) did not discuss facts or law, leading to an unacceptable ex-parte order.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in considering the partnership firm's bank accounts as belonging to the assessee, leading to an erroneous addition. The CIT(A) also failed to consider this crucial fact. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh assessment.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was bad for non-application of mind as it lacked reasoning and failed to discuss the relevant facts and law. The order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating all issues on merits as required by Section 250(6). While the assessee was also at fault for non-participation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal declined to grant an adjournment to the assessee, who was absent, and proceeded to hear the appeals ex-parte after hearing the Revenue. The specific grounds of appeal regarding capital gains and gift additions were not adjudicated in this excerpt.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in applying average rates of purity for silver ornaments. It held that the matter needed to be set aside to the AO for a fresh determination of the silver stock's value based on actual weight and purity, with the assistance of an expert valuer.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in applying average rates of purity for silver ornaments. It held that the matter needed to be set aside to the AO for a fresh determination of the silver stock's value based on actual weight and purity, with the assistance of an expert valuer.
The Tribunal declined to grant an adjournment to the assessee, who was absent, and proceeded to hear the appeals ex-parte after hearing the Revenue. The specific grounds of appeal regarding capital gains and gift additions were not adjudicated in this excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC resulted in double taxation of income already declared and also taxed exempt income. The CIT(A) confirmed the adjustment mechanically without considering the facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's sworn statement of non-receipt and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's comparable sale deeds and did not refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as required under Section 50C(2). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to provide independent reasoning and did not decide the issues on merit as required by Section 250(6). Both parties agreed to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that passing the order prior to the hearing date, despite an adjournment application, violated the principles of natural justice. The assessee was not given an opportunity to pursue the adjournment or argue the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's submissions regarding his age, health, and financial constraints. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's submissions regarding his age, health, and financial constraints. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's submissions regarding his age, health, and financial constraints. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.