Loading ITAT cases…
136 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that a similar business entity had its net profit estimated at 4% by the same AO. Therefore, the AO was directed to estimate the net profit at 4% of turnover for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated and completed in the name of a deceased person are null and void. Consequently, the entire assessment for the relevant assessment year is quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's decision was ex parte and lacked independent findings. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the appeal to the file of the lower appellate authority for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that a similar business entity had its net profit estimated at 4% by the same AO. Therefore, the AO was directed to estimate the net profit at 4% of turnover for the assessee.
For the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits. For the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal upheld the penalty as there was a clear violation of the provisions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without placing sufficient material on record. The Tribunal found that the activities of the trust were genuine and charitable in nature.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that a similar business entity had its net profit estimated at 4% by the same AO. Therefore, the AO was directed to estimate the net profit at 4% of turnover for the assessee.
The Tribunal first addressed the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. It held that the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal as time-barred did not prevent the Tribunal from adjudicating the assessee's appeal on its merits. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had a right to appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, irrespective of the Revenue's appeal status. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bills and vouchers, to substantiate the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to M/s. K.R. Constructions for services rendered. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not brought any contrary material on record to disprove the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C was not justified. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the NFAC and restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
For the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits. For the penalty under Section 271F, the Tribunal upheld the penalty as there was a clear violation of the provisions.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly verify the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all the uploaded documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, accepting the assessee's explanation. The matters were remanded back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide it afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was based on an incorrect satisfaction by the CIT(E) without considering the provided financials and without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to explain. The rejection without issuing a show cause notice was also found to be a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, accepting the assessee's explanation. The matters were remanded back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, accepting the assessee's explanation. The matters were remanded back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee and a searched person were in the same business. Since the AO estimated net profit at 4% for the searched person, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the same rate for the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee and a searched person were in the same business. Since the AO estimated net profit at 4% for the searched person, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the same rate for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if they could demonstrate exceptions to the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was based on an incorrect satisfaction by the CIT(E) without considering the provided financials and without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to explain. The rejection without issuing a show cause notice was also found to be a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the delay condonation petition and the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee and a searched person were in the same business. Since the AO estimated net profit at 4% for the searched person, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the same rate for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that notices issued in the name of a deceased person are invalid and constitute a jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without a proper show cause notice and without considering the trust's objects and compliance with Section 11(5). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee and a searched person were in the same business. Since the AO estimated net profit at 4% for the searched person, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the same rate for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-representation without adjudicating on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, accepting the assessee's explanation. The matters were remanded back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as it was inadvertently filed twice. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, accepting the assessee's explanation. The matters were remanded back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that notices issued in the name of a deceased person are invalid and constitute a jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without a proper show cause notice and without considering the trust's objects and compliance with Section 11(5). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee and a searched person were in the same business. Considering a similar assessment order for the searched person where net profit was estimated at 4%, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 4% of turnover for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals in time. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the appeal to the file of the lower appellate authority for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeals in time. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeals afresh.
The ITAT found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.