Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal found that the addition was based on mere presumption from an Excel sheet entry without concrete evidence of cash exchange. Citing previous judgments with similar facts, the Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the cash transaction.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on an uncorroborated third-party statement without any documentary evidence or opportunity for cross-examination. A registered sale deed carries a presumption of correctness which was not rebutted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the opportunity granted by the CIT(E) was not effective given the voluminous information required. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal, upholding the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to present its case. Proceedings under Section 12AB are quasi-judicial and should be decided on merits, not just procedural defaults.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require an effective opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order. The application was rejected primarily on technical grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the issue of registration back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the appeal on its merits without raising the issue of delay.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the higher rate of tax under Section 115BBE applies from FY 2017-18 onwards, following a Rajasthan High Court decision. Therefore, the regular rate of tax should be applied to the assessed income for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present her case on merits.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after considering the assessee's reasons. The matter was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, as no opportunity of hearing was granted earlier, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient verifiable evidence initially, the matter requires a more comprehensive examination. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the opportunity granted by the CIT(E) was not effective given the voluminous information required. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's claims for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) were less than the eligible amounts. It also affirmed the deletion of additions related to accrued interest on NPAs, following High Court rulings on the retrospective applicability of Section 43D to cooperative banks and the recognition of interest on a receipt basis.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, restoring them to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, with all issues kept open.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, restoring them to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, with all issues kept open.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance without a conclusive finding on the trust's activities. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an effective opportunity.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B, a deduction of 50% under Section 57(iv) must be allowed. The appeals were dismissed subject to this modification.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B, a deduction of 50% under Section 57(iv) must be allowed. The appeals were dismissed subject to this modification.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B, a deduction of 50% under Section 57(iv) must be allowed. The appeals were dismissed subject to this modification.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B, a deduction of 50% under Section 57(iv) must be allowed. The appeals were dismissed subject to this modification.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B, a deduction of 50% under Section 57(iv) must be allowed. The appeals were dismissed subject to this modification.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B, a deduction of 50% under Section 57(iv) must be allowed. The appeals were dismissed subject to this modification.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that 50% of the interest on enhanced compensation is taxable. The Assessing Officer's action was found to be correct.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de-novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case, and the issue of delay will not be raised by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and held that 50% of the interest on enhanced compensation was rightly taxed. For the cash deposit addition, the matter was set aside for de-novo adjudication due to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to professional negligence of his counsel. Considering the assessee's business income from milk dairy and potential past savings, the addition for the remaining deposit was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation is a debatable issue with divergent judicial views. Therefore, the assessee cannot be penalized for this issue.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, admitted the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to present its case forthwith.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee might be able to defend its case and accepted the prayer to restore the matter. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to prove its case.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances after considering the additional evidence and the AO's inability to rebut it. The Tribunal endorsed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the revenue had no valid grounds for appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for de novo adjudication. The assessee is granted another opportunity to substantiate the sources of cash deposits with cogent evidence before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The matter was restored back for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, while noting the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances after considering the additional evidence and the AO's inability to rebut it. The Tribunal endorsed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the revenue had no valid grounds for appeal.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and the absence of the assessee, set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the Rs. 16.35 Lacs addition.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances after considering the additional evidence and the AO's inability to rebut it. The Tribunal endorsed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the revenue had no valid grounds for appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to prove the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal restored the consequential penalty to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was done in light of the restoration of the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present and prove its case. This was done in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request, setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no opposition from the Revenue.