Loading ITAT cases…
90 tribunal orders from the Dehradun bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 90 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A)'s order did not provide details on notice issuance. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's family status (self, wife, and minor daughter), his consistent income in preceding years, and the locker being opened prior to marriage, the jewellery found was explained. The addition made by the AO was based on surmises.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B of the Act is not applicable when the default is in tax deduction at source, not advance tax payment. The issue of interest under Section 234C was restored to the AO for disposal of the assessee's pending rectification application.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing the assessee to provide evidence for the land purchase negotiations and allowing the AO to verify the same. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular is binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It relied on the High Court's and Supreme Court's decisions in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years, which held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying exemption.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circulars were binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not grant a proper opportunity to the applicant to satisfy the queries. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material found during the search are bad in law. The Tribunal also followed its previous orders in favour of the assessee regarding the Section 80IC deduction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 153A proceedings was void ab initio as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. For one appeal, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the search, and the assessment was already completed before the search, the addition made under Section 153A was not sustainable. The Tribunal followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 153A proceedings was void ab initio as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. For one appeal, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 153A proceedings was void ab initio as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. For one appeal, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 153A proceedings was void ab initio as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. For one appeal, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 153A proceedings was void ab initio as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. For one appeal, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 153A proceedings was void ab initio as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. For one appeal, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that service tax reimbursement is not to be included in gross receipts for computing taxable income under Section 44BB, as it is a reimbursement and not profit. This decision was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have submitted the documents, but they were not considered by the CIT. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction because the notice under Section 148 was issued after four years from the end of the assessment year, and there was no allegation of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The advances were already recorded in the assessee's books of accounts, and the addition was based on the verification of these books, not on seized documents.
The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the AO for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the non-receipt of statutory notices. The penalty appeal was allowed as the basis for penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the AO for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the non-receipt of statutory notices. The penalty appeal was allowed as the basis for penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal agreed that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.