Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A for failure to comply with a notice under Section 142(1) was not valid for assessment years prior to 2017-18, as the relevant provision was inserted prospectively. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A for failure to comply with a notice under Section 142(1) was not valid for assessment years prior to 2017-18, as the relevant provision was inserted prospectively. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that a mere time gap between borrowing and deposit does not invalidate the source of funds. It also directed the AO to consider the peak balance for computing taxable income and restricted the addition for closing stock to the amount claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow the brought forward loss as it was not disclosed in the return of income for the preceding year as required by Section 139(3). The Tribunal also confirmed the restriction of expenses due to the lack of supporting documentation.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as she had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was given liberty to approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme settlement.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was without any basis as it was made without receiving a valuation report from the Valuation Officer. Therefore, the addition under Section 69B could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and did not discuss the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default but must decide it on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. Dismissal for default by the CIT(A) is considered bad in law.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee intends to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, there is no purpose in continuing the appeal. Following a similar High Court decision, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both parties had taken contradictory stands before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on the allowability of the claimed interest expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO before admitting the fresh evidence. The AO should have been given a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence and provide a rebuttal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A for failure to comply with a notice under Section 142(1) was not valid for assessment years prior to 2017-18, as the relevant provision was inserted prospectively. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order on merits and lacked proper consideration of the facts.
The Tribunal held that a mere time gap between borrowing and deposit does not invalidate the source of funds. It also directed the AO to consider the peak balance for computing taxable income and restricted the addition for closing stock to the amount claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal agreed with both parties that a reasonable estimate would suffice and directed the AO to recompute the capital gains by adopting Rs.150/- per sq.ft. as the cost of acquisition of the building as on 01.04.1981.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to file a condonation petition before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to decide on the condonation first, and if condoned, then decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application for withdrawal of appeals and the Department has issued Form 3 under the VSVS scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) orders were passed without proper consideration of the assessee's case and violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default unless expressly authorized. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, as the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department issued Form 3, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority had issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of appeals under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority issued Form No.5. Therefore, the appeals filed by both parties were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(A) orders were passed without proper consideration of the assessee's case and violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal quashed the orders of the CIT(A) as they were passed on a deceased person. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) to implead the legal heirs and decide the matters on merits.
The Tribunal quashed the orders of the CIT(A) as they were passed on a deceased person. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) to implead the legal heirs and decide the matters on merits.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority had issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority issued Form No.5. Therefore, the appeals filed by both parties were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default and must decide on merits, even in the assessee's absence. The dismissal for default by the CIT(A) was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's medical condition. It found merit in the assessee's argument that the matter required reconsideration at the Assessing Officer's level.
The Tribunal found that both the CIT(A) and AO had failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and issued non-speaking orders. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the property should be referred to the Valuation Officer (DVO) to ascertain the fair market value, considering the subsequent reduction in guideline value by the State Government. The AO's order and CIT(A)'s order were set aside.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal quashed the orders of the CIT(A) as they were passed on a deceased person. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) to implead the legal heirs and decide the matters on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application for withdrawal of appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department has issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal quashed the orders of the CIT(A) as they were passed on a deceased person. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) to implead the legal heirs and decide the matters on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application for withdrawal of appeals and the Department has issued Form 3 under the VSVS scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.