Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a bonafide claim by purchasing a plot and starting construction, and the delay was due to personal exigencies. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision on the delay in filing Form 10 was not based on the actual issue before him. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to decide the issue of income tax paid as application of income. Therefore, these issues were remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the file to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and was directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's appeals for the same assessment years were previously allowed by quashing the assessment orders due to reopening under Section 148 being bad in law, nothing further survives for adjudication in the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's appeals for the same assessment years were previously allowed by quashing the assessment orders due to reopening under Section 148 being bad in law, nothing further survives for adjudication in the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the foreign travel expenses were incurred in the normal and ordinary course of its business and were not reimbursed by clients. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the levy of interest under Section 234B.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and contained factual errors. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the excess cash had a direct nexus with the assessee's business and was a result of their accounting practices. The Department failed to adequately investigate the genuineness of the transactions and the source of the cash.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on delayed royalty payments, including compound interest, is not penal in nature and is a deductible business expenditure. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order disallowing this claim.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on delayed royalty payments, including compound interest, is not penal in nature and is a deductible business expenditure. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order disallowing this claim.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was not decided on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB was vague as it did not specify under which clause of the section the penalty was being levied. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the appeal due to the low tax effect, as it did not meet the monetary limit set by the CBDT.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1)(a) for late deposit of employees' share of PF/ESI contribution beyond the prescribed due dates is justified. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of net profit was unsustainable due to lack of proper basis and failure to specify reasons for not relying on audited financial statements. The CIT(A)'s revised estimation was also found untenable.
The Tribunal held that the AO took a plausible view by accepting the surrendered income as business income, as it was directly linked to the assessee's business operations and adequately explained. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's revision order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of net profit was unsustainable due to lack of proper basis and failure to specify reasons for not relying on audited financial statements. The CIT(A)'s revised estimation was also found untenable.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of a loan from a private bank cannot be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii), 28(iv), or 41(1) of the Act. The amendment to Section 28 for such waivers is prospective and not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to address the crucial issue of jurisdiction regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 147. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the appeals were not decided on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeals were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that notices issued on the ITBA portal without actual communication to the assessee's counsel's email, which was provided, violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the ITBA portal does not constitute effective service. Principles of natural justice require proper and adequate opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the appeals were not decided on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeals were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and heard the Department's representative. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.