Loading ITAT cases…
117 orders · Page 1 of 3
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) NFAC's action was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision in Section 200A was effective from that date. For periods after June 1, 2015, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision in Section 200A was effective from that date. For periods after June 1, 2015, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found that both lower authorities passed orders ex parte, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment, with a direction to grant the assessee a sufficient opportunity to be heard and to issue a show cause notice before passing the final order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without granting a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for issuing the notice under section 148. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after necessary inquiries and verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision in Section 200A was effective from that date. For periods after June 1, 2015, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding NPA interest. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal accepted additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on specific grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision regarding NPA interest. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal accepted additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on specific grounds.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 263 was issued by an Income Tax Officer (ITO) who was subordinate to the PCIT, and this delegation of power was not permitted by law. Consequently, the entire revision proceeding was vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) due to unserved notices. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's submissions, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the Additional Commissioner. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the assessee's objections to the DVO's valuation report and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the assessee's submissions. Due to a plausible cause for non-appearance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the Additional Commissioner. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable as they were based on documents lacking evidential value. The assessee's decision to lease the property instead of purchasing it was supported by a lease deed and financial statements.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rejected the evidence primarily because the original affidavit was not submitted to the AO. Citing a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal held that the evidence, including Khasra Girdawari and the purchaser's affidavit, should be verified by the AO.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that Rule 2BBB was not applicable and quashed the order under Section 263. For AY 2015-16, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2016-17, the delay in filing the audit report was condoned based on a CBDT circular, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of unsigned and uncorroborated documents. The revenue failed to provide contrary evidence or circumstantial evidence to support the seized documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the dismissal of the original appeal was factually incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted the facts regarding TDS and self-assessment tax in the quantum appeal but had not properly verified these claims before sustaining the penalty.
The Tribunal held that nominal members are considered members of a cooperative society as per the relevant State Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on interest payments to nominal members.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the AO's order as the assessee had provided confirmations from debtors and the AO was operating under limited scrutiny. The PCIT failed to show that the AO's view was contrary to law or that the investigation was erroneous within the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim without rebutting the documents filed. Principles of natural justice require a proper opportunity and consideration of evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's decision on limitation extension due to COVID-19 and previous ITAT rulings. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for a speaking order and an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the source of investment of partners should be examined in the hands of the partners, not the assessee-firm. The addition made in the hands of the firm for capital introduced by partners was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the penalty issue and had instead discussed the quantum addition. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below did not properly adjudicate the issue of cash sales and the applicability of Section 68. It was noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were from cash sales and that the peak credit in the bank account was significantly lower than the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present evidence and that the assessment order was passed without proper rebuttal of the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of unsigned and uncorroborated documents. The revenue failed to provide contrary evidence or circumstantial evidence to support the seized documents.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that Rule 2BBB was not applicable and quashed the order under Section 263. For AY 2015-16, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2016-17, the delay in filing the audit report was condoned based on a CBDT circular, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication (de novo) after considering the legal ground regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of capital introduction under Section 68 was not sustainable in the hands of the firm, as the inquiry should have been made at the end of the partners. The additions made by the AO were quashed.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that Rule 2BBB was not applicable and quashed the order under Section 263. For AY 2015-16, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For AY 2016-17, the delay in filing the audit report was condoned based on a CBDT circular, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A for AY 2017-18 was invalid as it fell outside the prescribed period of 6 years preceding the search. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153A was deemed bad in law and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the mistake was a bonafide clerical error by the assessee's accountant, not an intentional concealment of income. The net profit declared remained unchanged, and the turnover in the tax audit report and financial statements matched Form 26AS.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration. The assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions were established. The depositors had sufficient cash in hand, and interest was paid with TDS, satisfying the criteria for genuine investment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals and the revenue did not object to their withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals and the revenue did not object to their withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as it had been granted permanent registration under Section 12AB, rendering the appeal academic. The Revenue did not object.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to grant sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and adjudicate the applications afresh on merits.
The Tribunal held that 'exemption' from excise duty does not fall under the definition of income as per Section 2(24)(xviii), which specifically lists 'subsidy', 'grant', etc. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,85,49,324/- was unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate the applications afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to appreciate that the cash deposited was immediately utilized for business payments to travel agencies. The Tribunal found that the addition had no basis as the amounts were related to the assessee's business and the income earned from it was already declared.
The Tribunal held that 'exemption' from excise duty does not fall under the definition of income as per Section 2(24)(xviii), which specifically lists 'subsidy', 'grant', etc. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,85,49,324/- was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's treatment of interest on NPAs and broken period interest, in accordance with RBI guidelines and consistent with prior years' assessments, was valid. The Tribunal relied on coordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case and other judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging the technical glitch and violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and consider the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging the technical glitch and violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and consider the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income, being related to business transactions like excess cash and stock, should be treated as business income. The addition under Section 69 and taxation under Section 115BBE were deemed incorrect as the source of the income was identifiable with the business.