Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals should be dismissed as the AO's valuation of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard was incorrect. The Tribunal also agreed that the Fair Market Value should be enhanced to account for unsaleable areas but remanded the issue to the AO for proper consideration of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 was squarely applicable to the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the low tax effect, while clarifying that this would not be a precedent for future years if the tax effect exceeds the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order, even if the assessee does not cooperate. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order, even if the assessee does not cooperate. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view was sustainable in law, especially since Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question. The CIT wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the present appeal and cross-objection had become infructuous because the issues were pending in another appeal (ITA No. 6026/Del/2016) for the same assessment year. Therefore, the appeal and cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the difference in the DVO's estimate and the assessee's declared investment in the hotel was less than 10%, making the addition unsustainable. Regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal found the AO's rejection of evidence (Form J) and estimation to be arbitrary, without proper investigation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the opening capital and the sale of trees. The late filing of the preceding year's return and the lack of regular assessment indicated an attempt to build capital. The oral confirmation of the transaction was deemed insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposits in his bank account with any material evidence. Affidavits from brothers were considered self-serving, and the explanation for deposits and withdrawals was not convincing.
The Tribunal noted that the rectification order resolved the issue, rendering the appeal infructuous. In the absence of any objection from the revenue, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals should be dismissed as the AO's valuation of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard was incorrect. The Tribunal also agreed that the Fair Market Value should be enhanced to account for unsaleable areas but remanded the issue to the AO for proper consideration of evidence.
The Tribunal held that obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Department is not sufficient to qualify for deduction under Section 80IC. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the High Court's guidelines.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals should be dismissed as the AO's valuation of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard was incorrect. The Tribunal also agreed that the Fair Market Value should be enhanced to account for unsaleable areas but remanded the issue to the AO for proper consideration of evidence.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the details of rent payments and the applicability of Section 194I. The Tribunal also noted that parking charges might be covered under Section 194I, not 194C, and that many rent payments were below the threshold for TDS. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals should be dismissed as the AO's valuation of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard was incorrect. The Tribunal also agreed that the Fair Market Value should be enhanced to account for unsaleable areas but remanded the issue to the AO for proper consideration of evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice was violated as there was no proof of the assessee receiving the notice from the CIT(A) regarding the e-filing requirement. The CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity to rectify the defect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee fully disclosed all information and did not furnish inaccurate particulars. There was no conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the assessee's conduct was not contumacious.
The assessee's authorized representative filed an application to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO himself accepted the assessee was an 'entry operator' and that the amounts would be taxed in the hands of beneficiaries, indicating a lack of substantive assessment.
The Tribunal held that the loan was genuine as the partner of M/s Monei Matters confirmed its advancement and the firm disclosed it as receivable in its balance sheet. The Tribunal also found the cash deposit of Rs. 50,231/- to be explained, considering the joint operation of the bank account by the assessee and her husband.
The Tribunal held that the advance of Rs. 18,10,000/- was on account of sales made during the year and thus not a deemed dividend, ordering its deletion. The addition of Rs. 26,12,832/- was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the advance of Rs. 18,10,000/- was on account of sales made during the year and thus not a deemed dividend, ordering its deletion. The addition of Rs. 26,12,832/- was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions, following its own decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.