Loading ITAT cases…
218 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration or substantiate their claims before the CIT(E) or the Tribunal. The assessees also failed to produce income and expenditure statements.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit necessary details. A cost of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal due to non-cooperation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to bring out sufficient facts regarding the transaction and the CIT(A)'s order was based on a procedural violation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit the required details. A cost of Rs. 15,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration or their income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused an opportunity for readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice should not be sacrificed for procedural lapses and that merits should prevail over technicalities. The delay was condoned, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the assessees failed to provide evidence of prior registration and did not furnish income and expenditure details. The assessees also refused the option of readjudication with costs.
The Tribunal held that the license issued in an individual's name cannot be used by a partnership firm, as per Supreme Court precedent. The assessee failed to respond to show-cause notices or adequately address the issue of income being assessed in the correct hands.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly followed relevant precedents regarding Section 80P, the issue of interest paid to non-members and related TDS provisions was not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly followed relevant precedents regarding Section 80P, the issue of interest paid to non-members and related TDS provisions was not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present documents to the Assessing Officer, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000. The penalty appeal was allowed as the assessment was being reopened.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly followed relevant precedents regarding Section 80P, the issue of interest paid to non-members and related TDS provisions was not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed before the effective date of the notification empowering the NFAC. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that warranty provisions, when based on scientific calculation and when unutilised portions are offered back as income, are allowable. Similarly, disallowances on installation charges and purchases from the son's concern were deleted as unjustified. However, a disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly followed relevant precedents regarding Section 80P, the issue of interest paid to non-members and related TDS provisions was not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed before the effective date of the notification authorizing the NFAC. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details and be granted an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions, finding that the revenue failed to dislodge the evidence presented during remand. However, the assessee's appeal regarding disallowances under Section 40A(3) was dismissed due to lack of proven business exigency.