Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the penalty notice renders the penalty invalid. This lack of clarity indicates a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration of the Section 80G application. This is to be done after the Section 12A registration is adjudicated, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce evidence before the lower authorities. To provide an opportunity to substantiate the claims, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the Principal CIT, such as expenditure from an earlier year, depreciation, and bad debts, were not considered by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. The assessee failed to provide evidence that these issues were examined. Therefore, the revisionary order directing the Assessing Officer to verify these details was considered valid.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) gave multiple opportunities, the assessee's non-representation led to dismissal without findings on merits. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee undertook to provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) gave multiple opportunities, the assessee's non-representation led to dismissal without findings on merits. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee undertook to provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) gave multiple opportunities, the assessee's non-representation led to dismissal without findings on merits. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee undertook to provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned if valid reasons are provided. Since the assessee failed to provide any reasons for the delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since the stock statement accepted by the AO reflected the purchases, the addition for bogus purchases should not be made solely because the seller did not respond to a notice. The AO had not adjusted the stock statement, implying acceptance of the purchases.
The Tribunal held that the order sheet entry dated 28.03.2016 constituted the reasons recorded for reopening. The approval obtained from the JCIT was found to be satisfactory, and the information provided by the DDIT (Inv) was considered sufficient basis for initiating reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) gave multiple opportunities, the assessee's non-representation led to dismissal without findings on merits. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the assessee undertook to provide necessary evidence.
The tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law due to the issuing officer not having the pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the consequential assessment order was also deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal held that for back-to-back transactions, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most suitable if direct inputs are available. It also emphasized that comparables must be functionally similar and operate in similar business environments and risks as per Rule 10B(2).
The Tribunal held that for back-to-back transactions, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most suitable if direct inputs are available. It also emphasized that comparables must be functionally similar and operate in similar business environments and risks as per Rule 10B(2).
The Tribunal found that while the AO's invocation of Section 145(3) was accepted, the 5% profit rate was excessive. Considering the past profit rates and the nature of defects, a reduced profit rate of 2.25% was deemed fair.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the taxability of NHAI compensation under CBDT Circular No. 36 of 2016 and to determine the income from the sale of the balance land as long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee will be granted adequate opportunities to substantiate its claims before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the CIT(Exemptions) were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents and evidence to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory requirement of e-filing appeals and did not rectify the defects despite opportunities. Therefore, the appeals were rightly treated as invalid by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory requirement of e-filing appeals and did not rectify the defects despite opportunities. Therefore, the appeals were rightly treated as invalid by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee adequate opportunity to present documentary evidence to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order without appreciating the facts. The assessee undertook to provide all documentary evidence if the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenditure was not a permissible adjustment under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Such adjustments are meant to be prima facie and specific, not open-ended.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee and had erroneously stated that no corroborative evidence was filed. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's plea for another opportunity to present evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. The AO was granted liberty to draw adverse inference if the assessee remained non-cooperative.
The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its earlier order. The name of the assessee-appellant has been corrected to 'Biranchi Narayan Mishra' as intended.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, as the Tribunal could not adjudicate without evidence being filed before lower authorities.
The Tribunal has rectified a typographical error in the cause title of its earlier order. The name of the assessee-appellant has been corrected to 'Biranchi Narayan Mishra' as intended.
The Tribunal held that the payments were made within the prescribed due dates and thus, no disallowance under Section 43B was warranted. The Tribunal also noted that Section 145A was not invoked by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect is not permissible under the provisions of Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision that also held retrospective cancellation to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were borrowed from investigation reports and lacked tangible material with a live link to the assessee's case. The approving authorities also showed a lack of application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to obtaining the subsequent approval. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that both issues raised by the CIT(Exemption) were specifically queried by the AO, substantiated with evidence, and examined during the assessment. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings were not justified.
The Tribunal held that once an assessment order is rectified under Section 154, it is no longer amenable to revision under Section 263. Furthermore, the CIT(Exemption) failed to conduct proper enquiry before passing the revisionary order.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate its claim. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the readjudication proceedings.