Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments for labour were made to individual labourers in petty amounts, none exceeding Rs. 20,000, thus not violating Section 40A(3). Regarding salary, the Tribunal found that a clerical error in the audit report led to the wrong name and amount being reported, and the correct payee and amount were verifiable from the books.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard or deciding the issues on merit. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee and had not obtained a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted due to unverifiable cash vouchers, the amount sustained by the CIT(A) was excessive. Therefore, the disallowance was further reduced to Rs. 25,000 to meet the ends of justice.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without verifying service of notices and without discussing the merits of the case. The tribunal emphasized the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side).
The Tribunal noted that the deductees had allegedly paid the tax and requested verification of this fact. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the grounds on which the CIT (Exemption) drew adverse inferences. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 revised the monetary limits for filing appeals retrospectively. As the tax effect was below the revised limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a precedent where assessments framed under Section 147/148 were held unsustainable when Section 153C was applicable. The Tribunal found the departmental appeal to be without merit.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a precedent where assessments framed under Section 147/148 were held unsustainable when Section 153C was applicable. The Tribunal found the departmental appeal to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found no basis for the condition imposed by the CIT(E) as the assessee's trust deed and activities did not exclusively focus on scholarships. It directed the CIT(E) to issue a revised order excluding the condition.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not adequately explained the cash deposits and failed to produce books of account, a final opportunity should be granted in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after considering all evidence and explanations.
The Tribunal held that the forklifts, being battery-operated, qualify as renewable energy devices eligible for 80% depreciation. However, the depreciation allowance was restricted to the amount needed to bring the assessed income back to the originally assessed income.
The Tribunal found that the assessment for the current year was under section 143(3), unlike the previous year's assessment under section 144. The Tribunal noted that the AO's order extensively examined the genuineness of purchases and sales, implicitly rejecting the accounts. The issue of quantification of income was found to be indeterminate and required further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the addition to the stock remaining with the assessee after returns to the principal. However, it found an arithmetical mistake in the computation of income by the Revenue, which resulted in an incorrect relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard before rejecting the application, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the overlap in directors and shareholding between the society and the company was not substantial enough to warrant an adverse inference.