Loading ITAT cases…
181 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal extended the time limit for the assessee to remit the sum of Rs. 10,000. The new deadline for payment is now March 28, 2024.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declared cost of acquisition as of April 1, 1981, was disputed. The AO and CIT(A) had relied on the DVO's valuation, which was substantially lower than the assessee's claim, leading to the disallowance of the claimed capital loss.
The Tribunal noted that the NCLT order, in line with Supreme Court and High Court decisions, extinguished government dues for the period prior to the CIRP commencement date. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered academic.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to make a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal allowed partial relief for gifts from the wife and father, considering their bank withdrawals and affidavits. However, the claim for gift from the mother-in-law was rejected due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the NCLT order, in line with Supreme Court and High Court decisions, extinguished government dues for the period prior to the CIRP commencement date. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered academic.
The Tribunal noted that the NCLT order, in line with Supreme Court and High Court decisions, extinguished government dues for the period prior to the CIRP commencement date. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered academic.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard as the notices were sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that an appellate order cannot be passed in the name of a deceased person. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay given the minor delay and the pending rectification application. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot enlarge the scope of limited scrutiny and that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The provision for bad debts was considered a clerical mistake, and the assessee had brought forward losses which would absorb any addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order, finding that proper notice was not served, and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of a wrong entry in the sale deed regarding cash payment was not acceptable as the document was duly signed and registered. The penalty levied under Section 271D was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause by treating the cash received as gifts and that the transactions were bona fide. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was untenable.
The Tribunal held that invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 does not bar the assessee from filing an appeal before the CIT(A). Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the previous year's assessment should not be the sole basis for disallowance. It held that the nature of the agreements with government departments needed to be examined to determine if the assessee was a developer or a contractor.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal decided to correct the appellant's name in the cause title of the order. The deceased individual's name was erroneously listed as the appellant instead of the legal heir.
The Tribunal accepted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, finding the assessee's reasons unacceptable. It was concluded that the assessee was aware of the ongoing proceedings and likely made a conscious decision not to appeal the revisional order.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the assessees to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs. 62,193 and the AO's disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 22,394. Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) was restricted to 'nil'.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity for a hearing before the lower authorities, subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities. This opportunity was conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 25,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's negligence but, citing violation of natural justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's counsel undertook to present the case properly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove that the cash payment did not constitute income and was disbursed to shareholders. The lack of evidence led to the upholding of the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the additions confirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, for which the assessee failed to provide an explanation, constituted undisclosed income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271AAB was rightly levied.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove that the cash payment did not constitute income and was disbursed to shareholders. The lack of evidence led to the upholding of the additions made by the AO.