Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from responding to the notices and that principles of natural justice were violated. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to disallow the deduction under Section 143(1) based on a belated return prior to the amendment of Section 143(1)(a)(v) by the Finance Act, 2021. Enabling provisions for such disallowances were absent before this amendment.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without deciding on merits. The assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the notices were not properly served on the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(Exemptions) did not follow the established procedure for communication.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
The Tribunal held that the fresh assessment was limited to the issues directed by the CIT under Section 263. Matters that had attained finality in the original assessment could not be reopened. Grounds related to profit estimation and partner credits were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had generally responded to notices and that the dismissal was based on a single instance of non-compliance with a late notice. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to rectify defects and be heard on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessment under Section 153A was not valid as no proper search or panchnama was conducted in the name of the assessee company. Regarding Section 68 additions, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence, and the additions were unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the assessee had substantially complied with most notices and the remaining notices were issued with unreasonable timelines, especially on a public holiday. The penalty notice also lacked specificity regarding the non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the revisional proceedings initiated by the PCIT were not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's conclusions were based on a misconception of facts and law, and that the PCIT could not substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer without establishing that the AO's view was impossible.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Since both the return of income and Form 67 were filed before the processing of the return by the CPC, the assessee cannot be denied the claim for foreign tax relief.
The Tribunal held that the revisional proceedings initiated by the PCIT were not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's conclusions were based on a misconception of facts and law, and that the PCIT could not substitute his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer without establishing that the AO's view was impossible.
The Tribunal held that the revisional proceedings initiated by the PCIT were not sustainable in law. The PCIT's order was set aside as it was based on a difference of opinion with the Assessing Officer and lacked proper grounds for revision.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due inquiry and considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the sale of a plot, popular trees, and agricultural equipment. The PCIT failed to consider this evidence, making the order under Section 263 unsustainable.