Loading ITAT cases…
418 tribunal orders from the Dehradun bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 418 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an AO who lacked jurisdiction, and the subsequent assessment was completed by another AO without a valid transfer of jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO and Ld. CIT(A) erred in including the Late Payment Surcharge (LPSC) on an accrual basis to the total income of the assessee, as opposed to the receipt basis declared by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the principle of consistency and the revenue-neutral nature of the exercise, citing Supreme Court judgments in CIT vs. Bilahari Investment P.Ltd. and Excel Industries Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made towards LPSC on accrual basis and also delete the enhancement made by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 were allowed. Regarding penalty proceedings under Section 270A, the Tribunal dismissed the ground as premature. For interest under Section 234A, the Tribunal allowed the ground, directing the AO not to charge interest as the return was filed within the extended due date (February 15, 2021) due to Covid-19. For interest under Sections 234B and 234C, the Tribunal directed the AO to charge interest under Section 234B on the income computed after giving effect to the Tribunal's order and Section 234C on the income declared in the return. This ground was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The issue regarding deduction under Section 80-IA was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt of the judgment, but the overall result indicates partial allowance.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed under section 144/144B due to the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A) had not admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A, upholding the additions made by the AO. The assessee requested another opportunity to present details to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The proprietors of the entities providing the entries admitted they were fake and no goods were supplied, supporting the AO's finding of bogus purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 167 days, considering the circumstances presented by the assessee, including the death of the CA and potential medical reasons for the delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the appeal on merits after condoning the delay, provided the assessee submits supporting documents for the illness.
The Tribunal held that the property was purchased in the assessee's individual capacity, as evidenced by the sale deeds and land records. The subsequent MOU was considered an afterthought, and the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the seized document, which was the sole basis for the addition, did not mention 'cash' and was seized from a third party. Furthermore, the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination, which violates the principles of natural justice. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, the addition was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A) was based on a wrong notion that the tax dispute was settled. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were premature and void ab initio, following its own precedent for AY 2014-15. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal by the CIT(A) was based on a wrong notion that the tax dispute was settled. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly admitted the documents produced by the assessee, as they were already on record before the Assessing Officer and did not constitute additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was based on VAT and excise returns, which the assessee had provided. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits and had passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits and that the assessee did not participate in the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite 15 notices, leading to an ex-parte decision. Although the CIT(A) decided the appeal on merits, it did not decide all grounds of appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had committed a clear violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, by considering documents produced by the assessee for the first time without a proper application and without confronting them to the AO. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the AO and CIT(A) despite opportunities. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment, directing the AO to provide a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all the grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits and passed the order ex-parte, violating natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded.
The CIT(A) deleted additions on account of unsecured loans (receipts and payments) and interest thereon, and also deleted the disallowance of construction development expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in its deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, noting that the assessee substantiated the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the bank account in question belonged to another society, not the assessee, based on evidence including a bank manager's certificate and financial statements of the other society. Therefore, the addition made in the hands of the assessee was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have produced documents that were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence sought by the assessee, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from producing it earlier. The matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on assets received on demerger, following its own previous orders. For the delayed contributions, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the due date should be reckoned from the actual date of salary payment, not the end of the month.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on assets received on demerger, following its own previous orders. For the second appeal, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the due date for PF & ESI contribution should be reckoned from the actual date of salary payment.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of unawareness of the faceless assessment scheme and online procedures. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
For unabated assessment years (2011-12, 2013-14 to 2016-17), assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the assessee's own search. In the absence of such material, these assessments are quashed. For the abated assessment year (2017-18), the CIT(A)'s order is upheld as no contradictory material was presented.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A for unabated assessment years must be based exclusively on incriminating material discovered during the assessee's own search. In the absence of such material, original assessments for unabated years remain undisturbed. The appeal for AY 2017-18 was dismissed as the assessee failed to contradict the findings of the lower authorities.
For unabated assessment years (2011-12, 2013-14 to 2016-17), assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the assessee's own search. In the absence of such material, these assessments are quashed. For the abated assessment year (2017-18), the CIT(A)'s order is upheld as no contradictory material was presented.
For unabated assessment years (2011-12, 2013-14 to 2016-17), assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the assessee's own search. In the absence of such material, these assessments are quashed. For the abated assessment year (2017-18), the CIT(A)'s order is upheld as no contradictory material was presented.
For unabated assessment years (2011-12, 2013-14 to 2016-17), assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the assessee's own search. In the absence of such material, these assessments are quashed. For the abated assessment year (2017-18), the CIT(A)'s order is upheld as no contradictory material was presented.
For unabated assessment years (2011-12, 2013-14 to 2016-17), assessments under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material seized during the assessee's own search. In the absence of such material, these assessments are quashed. For the abated assessment year (2017-18), the CIT(A)'s order is upheld as no contradictory material was presented.
The Tribunal held that interest income on income tax refunds arising to a foreign company under Section 244A of the Act is taxable at the maximum marginal rate. This decision was based on respectfully following previous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the income of a foreign company, under Section 244A of the Act, arising from the specified transactions should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal held that the income of a foreign company, under Section 244A of the Act, arising from the specified transactions should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal held that the income of a foreign company, under Section 244A of the Act, arising from the specified transactions should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders as the Assessee did not participate in the proceedings due to imprisonment. To uphold the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders as the Assessee did not participate in the proceedings due to imprisonment. To uphold the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders as the Assessee did not participate in the proceedings due to imprisonment. To uphold the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders as the Assessee did not participate in the proceedings due to imprisonment. To uphold the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.