Loading ITAT cases…
301 tribunal orders from the Chandigarh bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 301 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments not abated, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The AO cannot disturb finalized assessments without such material.
The Tribunal held that the appointment of the special auditor was illegal and bad in law due to lack of reasons and violation of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment orders passed beyond the original limitation period were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appointment of the special auditor was illegal and bad in law due to lack of reasons and violation of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment orders passed beyond the original limitation period were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appointment of the special auditor was illegal and bad in law due to lack of reasons and violation of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment orders passed beyond the original limitation period were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly considered the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the surrendered income as business-related. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263, which treated the income as unexplained and subject to higher tax, was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the appointment of the special auditor was illegal and bad in law due to lack of reasons and violation of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment orders passed beyond the original limitation period were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of disallowance of business loss, additions to capital account, and additions on account of long-term capital gains. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow set off of brought forward losses.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly considered the assessee's explanation regarding the source of the surrendered income as business-related. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263, which treated the income as unexplained and subject to higher tax, was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because it was framed by an Assessing Officer without jurisdiction. The notice issued under Section 143(2) by an officer lacking jurisdiction is considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the appointment of the special auditor was illegal and bad in law due to lack of reasons and violation of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment orders passed beyond the original limitation period were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the appeal against the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was incorrectly dismissed. The matter was set aside and restored to the First Appellate Authority for a decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO himself accepted the business was undergoing a lull, as other business expenses were allowed. The electricity payments, supported by third-party bills and receipts, were considered genuine, and the assessee could not be held responsible for the electricity corporation's non-response to the AO's queries.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the power to make such a disallowance under Section 143(1) for the assessment year in question, as the enabling provisions for the amendment to Section 80AC came into effect later. Therefore, the disallowance was not permissible.
The Tribunal found that it was unclear from the orders whether the 15G forms were indeed filed. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the availability of the 15G Forms.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal, allowing the assessee to argue that the settlement amount was a non-taxable capital receipt. The core dispute is the characterization of the receipt as revenue or capital.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the jurisdictional ITO failed to issue a notice under Section 148 before framing the assessment. The transfer of the case was also not done with the sanction of the competent authority.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of low GP rate, finding it unwarranted. For the addition on account of unaccounted purchases, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty orders, accepting the assessee's bonafide belief and conduct. It was held that the issue of taxability of enhanced compensation was debatable, and there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to procedural difficulties and lack of opportunity.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty orders, accepting the assessee's bonafide belief and conduct. It was held that the issue of taxability of enhanced compensation was debatable, and there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to procedural difficulties and lack of opportunity.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals ex-parte after hearing the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee were either not agitated before the lower authorities or lacked substantiation with evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of Section 206C(1C) were admitted by the High Court, the penalty under Section 271CA could not be sustained and was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals ex-parte after hearing the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee were either not agitated before the lower authorities or lacked substantiation with evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of Section 206C(1C) were admitted by the High Court, the penalty under Section 271CA could not be sustained and was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of Section 206C(1C) were admitted by the High Court, the penalty under Section 271CA could not be sustained and was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as the claims were allowed after due verification and supported by judicial precedents. The PCIT's action of substituting his own view was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the substantial questions of law regarding the applicability of Section 206C(1C) were admitted by the High Court, the penalty under Section 271CA could not be sustained and was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals ex-parte after hearing the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee were either not agitated before the lower authorities or lacked substantiation with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustment was a mistake apparent from the record. The sale proceeds of the property were correctly offered as capital gains, and the cost of acquisition should have been considered. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (Exemptions) and remanded the case back. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present its case.
The Tribunal held that the AO had thoroughly examined the claim for deduction under Section 54, including the construction of the new house and related expenses. The PCIT's conclusion of lack of inquiry was found to be unsubstantiated by the records.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of expenditure for agricultural operations from past savings. The AO had no justifiable basis to make additions under Section 69A. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,40,000/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated uncertainties regarding the determination and collection of the revenue. Since the revenue was subsequently recognized in a later financial year after resolution and acceptance, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of expenditure for agricultural operations from past savings. The AO had no justifiable basis to make additions under Section 69A. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,40,000/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC charges to GMADA does not constitute a work or service contract under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.
The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC charges to GMADA does not constitute a work/service contract under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payments.
The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC charges to GMADA does not constitute a work or service contract under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on these payments.
The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the possession of excess jewellery weighing 147 grams was reasonable, considering it belonged to the entire family and was acquired through customary practices. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the possession of excess jewellery weighing 147 grams was reasonable, considering it belonged to the entire family and was acquired through customary practices. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the possession of excess jewellery weighing 147 grams was reasonable, considering it belonged to the entire family and was acquired through customary practices. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries, which were duly replied to by the assessee. The PCIT's order was based on conjectures and failed to point out any specific error prejudicial to revenue.