Loading ITAT cases…
84 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that both quantum and penalty appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) without condoning the significant delays and without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. Recognizing the plausible reasons for delay cited by the assessee, the ITAT restored the issues in the quantum appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were also implicitly covered by this decision.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had a substantial opening balance, withdrew Rs. 10,15,000/- on April 21, 2016, and redeposited the exact amount (Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 15,000/-) within four days on April 25 and 26, 2016. Since the revenue failed to establish that the withdrawn cash was utilized elsewhere, the Tribunal concluded that no addition was required.
The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-cooperation and the absence of evidence before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee reasonable opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal noted that while the new evidences were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to the absence of a Rule 46A application, in the interest of justice, the matter concerning the Rs. 6,13,55,631/- is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and re-adjudication. The stay petition filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 423-day delay, finding reasonable cause. It upheld the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) but reduced the estimated net profit rate on turnover from 6% to 3%, directing the deletion of the balance addition. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs.44,92,000/- made under section 69A for cash deposits, concluding they were from explained IMFL business receipts and not unexplained.
The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to decide the penalty appeal while the quantum appeal was pending. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication along with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000 per appeal was levied on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000 per appeal was levied on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000 per appeal was levied on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000 per appeal was levied on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000 per appeal was levied on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000 per appeal was levied on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argue the legal grounds for reopening the assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. A cost of Rs. 2,000 per appeal was levied on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA for profits from projects where new infrastructure facilities were developed. However, for projects where no new facilities were created, the deduction is to be disallowed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA for profits from projects where new infrastructure facilities were developed. However, for projects where no new facilities were created, the deduction is to be disallowed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as the reasons provided, supported by medical certificates, were found to be genuine. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of late fees, agreeing with the CIT(A) that Section 200A of the Act did not have an enabling provision to levy such fees prior to June 1, 2015. The revenue failed to provide any decision from the jurisdictional High Court on this matter.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A of the Act did not contain an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have levied such fees.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA for profits from projects where new infrastructure facilities were developed. However, for projects where no new facilities were created, the deduction is to be disallowed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA for profits from projects where new infrastructure facilities were developed. However, for projects where no new facilities were created, the deduction is to be disallowed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA for profits from projects where new infrastructure facilities were developed. However, for projects where no new facilities were created, the deduction is to be disallowed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA for profits from projects where new infrastructure facilities were developed. However, for projects where no new facilities were created, the deduction is to be disallowed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA for profits from projects where new infrastructure facilities were developed. However, for projects where no new facilities were created, the deduction is to be disallowed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.