Loading ITAT cases…
51 orders · Page 1 of 2
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The grounds raised by the appellant became redundant due to a family settlement and merger of units.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The grounds raised by the appellant became redundant due to a family settlement and merger of units.
The Tribunal held that contra entries and bank interest were wrongly treated as turnover. It also noted that the demonetization deposit was part of the opening cash balance and prior period profits. The net profit was restricted to 8% of the reduced turnover, and undisclosed savings interest was added.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make reassessments as the additions were not based on the recorded reasons for reopening. The reassessment orders were quashed because the grounds for reopening were not substantiated by the subsequent additions made.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make reassessments as the additions were not based on the recorded reasons for reopening. The reassessment orders were quashed because the grounds for reopening were not substantiated by the subsequent additions made.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make reassessments as the additions were not based on the recorded reasons for reopening. The reassessment orders were quashed because the grounds for reopening were not substantiated by the subsequent additions made.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The grounds raised by the appellant became redundant due to a family settlement and merger of units.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274/271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity rendered the notice defective.
The Tribunal held that the AO acted beyond his jurisdiction by using Section 154 to rectify debatable issues that were not part of the original assessment. A mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and not require extensive reasoning.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case and that the revenue could not provide evidence of proper notice issuance. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the High Court's order restored the registration under Section 12AA, the exemption under Section 11 is contingent on valid registration. Since the assessee could not produce proof of current registration, the exemption claim was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities are eligible for exemption under section 2(15) of the Act, respectfully relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. Consequently, Ground No. 1 of the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made adequate inquiries and accepted the transaction as a normal business transaction. The Tribunal found that the high seas sale was a normal business transaction, not speculative, and relied on previous ITAT orders.
The Tribunal held that while the High Court's order restored the registration under Section 12AA, the exemption under Section 11 is contingent on valid registration. Since the assessee could not produce proof of current registration, the exemption claim was not allowed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had erred in converting an addition under Section 68 to Section 69 and that Section 68 cannot be applied to a simple bank deposit. The Tribunal remitted the factual grounds back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while the High Court's order restored the registration under Section 12AA, the exemption under Section 11 is contingent on valid registration. Since the assessee could not produce proof of current registration, the exemption claim was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the High Court's order restored the registration under Section 12AA, the exemption under Section 11 is contingent on valid registration. Since the assessee could not produce proof of current registration, the exemption claim was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the High Court's order restored the registration under Section 12AA, the exemption under Section 11 is allowable only for registered trusts. As the assessee could not produce proof of registration for the relevant assessment years, the exemption claim was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the High Court's order restored the registration under Section 12AA, the exemption under Section 11 is contingent on valid registration. Since the assessee could not produce proof of current registration, the exemption claim was not allowed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had erred in converting an addition under Section 68 to Section 69 and that Section 68 cannot be applied to a simple bank deposit. The Tribunal remitted the factual grounds back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that while the High Court's order restored the registration under Section 12AA, the exemption under Section 11 is contingent on valid registration. Since the assessee could not produce proof of current registration, the exemption claim was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order arbitrarily by using incorrect facts and failing to apply its mind to the assessee's case. The principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits, ignoring the assessee's submissions and violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the bonafide reasons presented by the assessee regarding the non-receipt of notices. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the bonafide reasons presented by the assessee regarding the non-receipt of notices. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the non-compliance to be reasonable and that the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's orders were non-speaking and lacked proper adjudication on the essential conditions for registration and approval. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) adequately considered the nature of the surrendered income and its potential connection to business activities. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to direct the reopening of a case for another assessment year, as this power is not granted under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reopening initiated based on the CIT(A)'s observation was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verification regarding the sale agreements and property rights before allowing the deduction. The assessee's contention regarding the initiation of proceedings and opportunity of hearing was not found to be valid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT failed to assume jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 263 because the show cause notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. Consequently, the order passed by the Principal CIT was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed before the due date for filing documents, constituting a violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's orders were non-speaking and lacked proper adjudication on the essential conditions for registration and approval. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for creating a business asset from an unexplained source should be construed as income earned from the business. Therefore, the amount used for building construction should be treated as business income, not unexplained investment.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the CIT(A), relying on the principle that the CIT(A) has co-terminus powers with the AO. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity to present its case regarding the disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee failed to provide acceptable reasons for non-compliance with statutory notices during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was that the total tax effect of the appeal was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, making it not entertainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided detailed cash flow statements and explanations for credit entries, which were supported by bank statements. The Tribunal concluded that the cash and credit entries were not unexplained and quashed the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity of being heard in view of the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the bank account was used for business transactions and that the Assessing Officer had not properly served notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be entertained due to the non-payment of admitted tax. The assessee's inability to provide proof of payment was noted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) has the power to examine only the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities for granting registration under Section 12AA. The CIT cannot delve into the eligibility for exemption under Section 11, which is the Assessing Officer's domain.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during a survey, which is part of regular business activity and surrendered as business income, cannot be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69B. Consequently, the applicability of Section 115BBE was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed by a deceased person and the legal heirs were not substituted. The appeal was abated with liberty to revive it upon substitution of legal heirs.