Loading ITAT cases…
795 tribunal orders from the Amritsar bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 795 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable as it was filed by a deceased person. The appeal was abated, with liberty to the legal heirs to revive it upon being brought on record.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust's object of promoting Punjab, Punjabi, and Punjabiat, including running a newspaper, falls under 'charitable purpose'. It also found no violation of Section 13(3) as the Revenue failed to prove payments to specified persons were excessive for services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were void ab initio as the legal heir was not properly brought on record and the assessment order was time-barred. The nature of the land at the time of acquisition was agricultural and therefore not liable to capital gains tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were void ab initio as the legal heir was not properly brought on record and the assessment order was time-barred. The nature of the land at the time of acquisition was agricultural and therefore not liable to capital gains tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were void ab initio as the legal heir was not properly brought on record and the assessment order was time-barred. The nature of the land at the time of acquisition was agricultural and therefore not liable to capital gains tax.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee clearly stated the excess cash was from business transactions and the revenue could not establish any other source, the addition under Section 69A and taxation under Section 115BBE were not justified. The income should be taxed at normal rates.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that CBDT instructions and circulars regarding condonation of delay in filing returns and Form 10B were applicable. The assessee should not be deprived of the benefit of exemption under Section 11 due to a technical mistake.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was between real brothers, who are considered 'relatives' under the Act. Therefore, Section 56(2)(vii) was not applicable to this transaction, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid and void ab initio due to the lack of a specific charge. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation report was invalid as it was furnished beyond the prescribed time limit. Furthermore, the report was based on CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation report was invalid as it was furnished beyond the prescribed time limit. Furthermore, the report was based on CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that while admissions made during a survey can be disputed, they form a basis for assessment unless retracted with strong evidence. The CIT(A) did not objectively deal with the AO's contentions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while admissions made during a survey can be disputed, they form a basis for assessment unless retracted with strong evidence. The CIT(A) did not objectively deal with the AO's contentions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matters concerning additions of Rs. 12,74,722/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- back to the AO for further consideration. The addition of Rs. 7,56,140/- on account of GP rate was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matters concerning additions of Rs. 12,74,722/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- back to the AO for further consideration. The addition of Rs. 7,56,140/- on account of GP rate was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard and had plausible reasons for non-compliance. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matters concerning additions of Rs. 12,74,722/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- back to the AO for further consideration. The addition of Rs. 7,56,140/- on account of GP rate was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings and the non-supply of reasons recorded. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the facts concerning the addition under Section 69A.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest, finding no basis for it. For the brought forward losses, the Tribunal noted that ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee in prior years and remanded the issue for verification and allowance.