Loading ITAT cases…
303 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, which mandates issuance through automated allocation in a faceless manner. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the notice was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment Scheme, 2022, as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO). Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was not issued in a faceless manner as prescribed by the e-assessment scheme. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in similar cases.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for not responding to the notices. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with the CBDT's e-assessment scheme, which requires faceless issuance. This renders the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by the JAO and not through the faceless allocation mechanism prescribed by the CBDT's e-assessment scheme. This decision followed pronouncements from various High Courts and the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the CPC was based on the assessee not renewing its registration under Section 12A by filing the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) before June 30, 2021. The assessee has since filed the renewal application before the CIT(Exemptions) along with a petition for condonation of delay. The Tribunal opined that the Addl. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals without awaiting the decision of the CIT(Exemptions) on the Section 12A registration. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after receipt of the decision from the CIT(Exemptions). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal is hearing two appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders from the Ld. CIT(A). The specific grounds and decisions of the Tribunal are not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the CIT Appeals erred in applying the provisions of Section 68, which are different from Section 115BBC. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had maintained records of donor names and addresses, fulfilling the requirements of Section 115BBC.
The Tribunal held that the AO was barred from reopening the assessment for AY 2012-13 based on the third proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act, which prohibits reopening preceding assessment years solely for non-registration. The AO's action was also found to be in defiance of CBDT circulars and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but found the assessee's explanation to be bonafide, considering the tax demand was paid and the assessee's unemployment. The Tribunal held that the appeal was infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid as it was not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, which mandates issuance by the FAO. Consequently, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid because the reassessment under Section 153C was for unabated years and based on material from a third party, not directly incriminating the assessee for those specific years. The PCIT should have targeted the original assessment orders, which were time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were invalid because they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Centre, contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified by the CBDT. Consequently, the penalty order was also set aside.
The Tribunal accepted the plea of the Departmental Representative. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment regarding appellate jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that appeals lie with the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer is located. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for not responding to the CIT(A) notices to be sufficient cause. The ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored for a de novo hearing on merits, subject to the assessee paying Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme of 2022. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notices and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice for re-opening the assessment and the subsequent assessment order were invalid as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified by the CBDT. Consequently, the penalty order was also set aside.
The Tribunal excused the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the trustee was unfamiliar with online procedures. It was held that granting one more opportunity to the assessee before the CIT(E) would be in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO’s reason for addition was legally unsustainable. The assessee provided evidence of cash sales and the audited financials accepted by the AO included these sales. The Tribunal found that disallowing the explanation and adding the amount would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by the JAO and not through the faceless assessment procedure prescribed by the CBDT scheme. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in similar cases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay due to the assessee's mother's illness. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding the entire cash deposit without considering the withdrawals and the assessee's business model. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted similar explanations in previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the CPC was based on the assessee not renewing its registration under Section 12A by filing the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) before June 30, 2021. The assessee has since filed the renewal application before the CIT(Exemptions) along with a petition for condonation of delay. The Tribunal opined that the Addl. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals without awaiting the decision of the CIT(Exemptions) on the Section 12A registration. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after receipt of the decision from the CIT(Exemptions). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 by the JAO after the CBDT's e-assessment scheme notification were invalid as they did not follow the mandatory faceless procedure. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of MLFPS scripts are a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt, and therefore, not taxable. This decision followed previous rulings by the Tribunal and considered amendments to the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid as it did not comply with the e-assessment scheme, which requires such notices to be issued in a faceless manner by the NFAC. This decision followed pronouncements from various High Courts.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 by the JAO after the CBDT's e-assessment scheme notification were invalid as they did not follow the mandatory faceless procedure. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to tax only the peak credit of the cash deposits in the employees' and relatives' accounts, rather than the entire amount. This was based on the observed pattern of deposits and withdrawals, and the assessee's prior acceptance of peak credit as the income component.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to tax only the peak credit of the cash deposits in the employees' and relatives' accounts, rather than the entire amount. This was based on the observed pattern of deposits and withdrawals, and the assessee's prior acceptance of peak credit as the income component.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to tax only the peak credit of the cash deposits in the employees' and relatives' accounts, rather than the entire amount. This was based on the observed pattern of deposits and withdrawals, and the assessee's prior acceptance of peak credit as the income component.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to tax only the peak credit of the cash deposits in the employees' and relatives' accounts, rather than the entire amount. This was based on the observed pattern of deposits and withdrawals, and the assessee's prior acceptance of peak credit as the income component.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence but, in the interest of natural justice, granted one more opportunity to substantiate the case before the AO. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the assessee's claim of stock deterioration due to fungal infestation and its valuation at net realizable value. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Income Tax Officer (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which was contrary to the e-assessment Scheme, 2022. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not properly issue the show-cause notice and rejected the applications without a full opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions for accumulation, as the original Form 10 was filed within the due date and there was no express prohibition against revising it. The disallowance was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that simply accepting demonetized currency in violation of notifications does not automatically make the source unexplained. The addition cannot be made under Section 69A if the source is explained through business sales and recorded in audited books.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering that the assessee was ready to submit the required information, set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to tax only the peak credit of the cash deposits in the employees' and relatives' accounts, rather than the entire amount. This was based on the observed pattern of deposits and withdrawals, and the assessee's prior acceptance of peak credit as the income component.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions without issuing a show cause notice and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was leviable under Section 272A(1)(d) for failure to comply with statutory notices. However, considering the notices were reminders and constituted a single default, the penalty was reduced.
The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be assessed substantively in more than one hand. Since the matter had been subject to proceedings in the hands of the Managing Partner, and subsequent developments had occurred, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not properly issue the show-cause notice and rejected the applications without a full opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that failure to deposit sale proceeds into the capital gains account scheme is a technical breach and should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 54, especially when the sale proceeds were utilized for acquiring a new asset within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal held that the AO had grounds to believe escaped income was above Rs. 50 lakhs initially, but a significant portion of the cash balance was from the previous financial year, making the escapement relatable to the current AY below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the reopening beyond three years was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were reasonable. The delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the delay and the absence of a condonation petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by NFAC was bad in law as it did not issue notice under Section 148A before concluding the assessment under Section 147. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. V. ITO, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.