Loading ITAT cases…
127 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were therefore set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The appeals were therefore set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal because the grounds of appeal were based on the original assessment order and not the rectification order, which was the subject of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal based on this technicality.
The Tribunal held that since seized material from a third party was used in the assessee's assessment, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, requiring a notice. As this procedure was not followed, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since seized material from a third party was used in the assessee's assessment, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, requiring a notice. As this procedure was not followed, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D of the Act was done in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal quashed the approval as unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D of the Act was done in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. Citing decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal quashed the approval as unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since seized material from a third party was used in the assessee's assessment, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, requiring a notice. As this procedure was not followed, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the pending High Court case regarding Section 12A registration has a substantial bearing on the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication after the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the pending High Court case regarding Section 12A registration has a substantial bearing on the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication after the High Court's decision.
The appellate tribunal held that the order of the CIT(E) was not a speaking order. The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the pending High Court case regarding Section 12A registration has a substantial bearing on the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication after the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the pending High Court case regarding Section 12A registration has a substantial bearing on the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication after the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the pending High Court case regarding Section 12A registration has a substantial bearing on the facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication after the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal partly allowed ITA No. 234/CTK/2025 for statistical purposes, restoring the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. ITA No. 237/CTK/2025 was dismissed as infructuous, being a duplication of ITA No. 234/CTK/2025.
The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that granting only one day to respond to the show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the quantum appeal was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that granting only one day to respond to the show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the quantum appeal was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the AO or CIT(A). The method of treating bank deposits as turnover and estimating income was deemed impermissible. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee chose the wrong code for Section 12A registration. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Learned CIT (E) for re-adjudication and to allow the assessee an opportunity to rectify any mistakes.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had shown inability to produce relevant documents before the lower authorities and considered the submission regarding trainee accountants as an afterthought. However, to grant an adequate opportunity, the issues in the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had shown inability to produce relevant documents before the lower authorities and considered the submission regarding trainee accountants as an afterthought. However, to grant an adequate opportunity, the issues in the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication. The CIT(E) should provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and to rectify any defects in the application.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given only 3 days to respond to the CIT(E)'s notice. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and rectify defects.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the AO, and the bank account claimed as belonging to the partnership firm was shown by the AO to belong to the individual assessee. The partnership firm had not filed its return, and the assessee's conduct was deemed contumacious.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee switched from a cash to a mercantile system after the search, and the difference in income was due to accrued interest, not concealment. The penalties were deemed unsustainable.
The tribunal noted that the assessee was granted only 03 days to respond to the notice. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and rectify defects in the application.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee chose the wrong code for Section 12A registration. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Learned CIT (E) for re-adjudication and to allow the assessee an opportunity to rectify any mistakes.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had shown inability to produce relevant documents before the lower authorities and considered the submission regarding trainee accountants as an afterthought. However, to grant an adequate opportunity, the issues in the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not cooperated in the appellate proceedings. However, considering the request for an opportunity to produce documents, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had shown inability to produce relevant documents before the lower authorities and considered the submission regarding trainee accountants as an afterthought. However, to grant an adequate opportunity, the issues in the quantum appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee switched from a cash to a mercantile system after the search, and the difference in income was due to accrued interest, not concealment. The penalties were deemed unsustainable.
For AY 2012-2013, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer and not on any failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment and consequential order were quashed. For AY 2014-2015, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented, including the remand report, field inquiry, and documentation, supported the assessee's claim of agricultural income, leading to the deletion of the additional disallowance.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, as the original assessment had accepted the agricultural income, and thus quashed the reassessment. For AY 2014-15, based on a remand report confirming extensive agricultural land cultivation and proper banking channel receipts for produce, the Tribunal deleted the additional disallowance of agricultural income, maintaining only the undisputed initial disallowance.
The Tribunal observed that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) for both assessment years did not show any prior intimation to the assessee as required by the proviso. Consequently, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to file a proper application for immunity under section 270AA of the Act in the prescribed format. The letter submitted by the assessee was merely an intimation of tax payment and did not meet the conditions for immunity, specifically regarding the filing of an appeal. Therefore, the claim for immunity could not be considered.
The Tribunal observed that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) for both assessment years did not show any prior intimation to the assessee as required by the proviso. Consequently, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was quashed.
The tribunal observed that the Addl./JCIT(A) had already condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the appeal was set aside. The issues were restored to the Addl./JCIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that for estimating income under Section 145 of the Act, it is compulsory to invoke the provisions of Section 145 and reject the books of account. In this case, the AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, making the estimation unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted the submission regarding the VSVS Scheme and form no. 4. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the verification report was not dislodged by the revenue. Since the findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) based on the verification were not disputed by the revenue, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not pass a speaking order and the reasons for rejection were not explicitly mentioned. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) to reconsider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the submission regarding the VSVS Scheme and form no. 4. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the mistake was rectifiable. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the CIT(E) and to rectify its mistake in filing the necessary application. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue on merits after rectification.
The Tribunal observed that the sale transaction clearly pertained to AY 2016-17 and not AY 2017-18. Although the AO examined the cash receipt and noted a contravention of Section 269SS for AY 2017-18, no addition was made. The Tribunal held that the violation, if any, should have been considered in AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided an affidavit and furnished books of accounts. The CIT(A) verified the books and found that deposits were out of sale proceeds and from debtors, appearing to be in the regular course of business.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee claims all payments were made within the due date. For verification, the issues are restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) to ascertain if payments were made within the due date and any extended time under the relevant Acts.
The tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that while the Id.CIT(A) acknowledged the reasons for delay, the order was not passed on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for readjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B one month before the due date of the return is not a mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12. Even if filed at a later stage, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption. The intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act stands quashed.