Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit from the initiation of penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erroneously considered Form 35 of another assessee while passing the ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist and potentially not having access to electronic systems, was denied a proper opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for a fresh denovo order after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limit under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents regarding the starting point for calculating this limitation period.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT (Exemptions) did not comply with the Principle of Natural Justice by issuing a short notice and passing an order without granting adequate opportunity. Therefore, the matters were restored to the PCIT (Exemptions) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 39 days, considering the reasons provided in the application and an affidavit. While noting the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the matter, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of both IQVIA Inc. and IQVIA Ltd. were to be treated as withdrawn and dismissed. This decision was based on the assessees' applications for withdrawal, their opting for the Direct Taxes Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the subsequent issuance of Form 2 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. The Tribunal noted that the ld. AR referred to the applications filed by the assessees, and the ld. DR also agreed. In view of the filing of Form 1 under DTVSV 2024 and the consequent issue of Form 2, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed. However, the assessees were granted liberty to have their appeals revived if the disputes were not resolved under the DTVSV 2024 scheme, subject to the provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without properly considering the assessee's contention regarding non-service of notice via postal modes as requested. The matter was restored to the file of the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to re-examine the deductibility of eligible amounts under Section 115JB, after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, was correct. The assessee was directed to provide details of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The AO's appeal was dismissed as infructuous or on other grounds.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of both IQVIA Inc. and IQVIA Ltd. were to be treated as withdrawn and dismissed. This decision was based on the assessees' applications for withdrawal, their opting for the Direct Taxes Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the subsequent issuance of Form 2 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. The Tribunal noted that the ld. AR referred to the applications filed by the assessees, and the ld. DR also agreed. In view of the filing of Form 1 under DTVSV 2024 and the consequent issue of Form 2, the appeals were treated as withdrawn and dismissed. However, the assessees were granted liberty to have their appeals revived if the disputes were not resolved under the DTVSV 2024 scheme, subject to the provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 17 days was minimal and the reasons for the delay were reasonable. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, noting that the assessee's status as a co-operative society for the purpose of Section 80P was not incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limit from the initiation of penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the losses brought forward were from AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, for which returns were filed in time. The belated filing of the AY 2016-17 return did not affect the carry forward and set off of losses from earlier years. The Tribunal also noted calculation errors in the losses.
The Tribunal held that for a sale to be valid, there must be payment of sale consideration. As no payment was made and no physical possession was transferred, the sale deed was considered void. Therefore, the addition under Section 69 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. It found that the additions made were not sustainable on the facts and in law. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, preferring substantial justice over technicality. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the first proviso to section 147 as the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. Therefore, the notice under section 148 was considered illegal and void ab-initio.