Loading ITAT cases…
586 orders · Page 12 of 12
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The tribunal held that since the impugned order of the CIT(A) had been recalled, the appeal filed against it had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT cannot use revisionary powers under Section 263 to do what the AO could not have done in reassessment proceedings under Section 153A, especially in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following the CBDT circular, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a proper opportunity was not given. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the AO for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular directing that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or pressed.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, held that the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) should be granted. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were similar to the previous year and aligned with its charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the AO had not applied independent mind to the information. A mere deposit in a bank account cannot per se be considered as escaped income.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, held that the approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) should be granted. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were similar to the previous year and aligned with its charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction as required by Section 14A and Rule 8D, and no specific expenditure related to exempt income was identified. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the case of the same assessee for a different assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction in the issuing officer. The appeal was dismissed as the issue was covered by a previous ITAT order concerning the same assessee for AY 2008-2009.
The Tribunal held that no addition could be made under Section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search, and the original assessment was already completed. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order and confirmed the assessment in a routine manner without deciding on merits. The Tribunal held that this was contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the identical addition had been deleted by the ITAT in a prior order for the same assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances were identical to a previous precedent where similar issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay in e-filing and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the initial limited scrutiny without obtaining necessary approval from the Principal CIT/DIT. The assessment order was found to be in violation of specific CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were legal and went to the root of the matter. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its earlier orders for previous assessment years, where similar disallowances were deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's appeal for a subsequent year on similar grounds had been dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was substantially deleted by a previous ITAT order, the basis for levying the penalty has vanished. Therefore, the penalty is not leviable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they were legal and went to the root of the matter. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply a 1.5% net profit rate, considering past trading results and the absence of comparable cases. The AO was directed to re-calculate the additional income based on this rate.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order, holding that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on a need for verification rather than a firm belief of income escapement. The Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision that reopening is not permissible for mere verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were unsustainable as they failed to provide points for determination and reasons for decision. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of mentioning points for determination and giving reasons for the decision. The orders of the CIT(Appeals) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were unsustainable as they failed to provide points for determination and reasons for decision. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to consider claims not made in the original return. Following precedent, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to examine the assessee's claim afresh based on the revised computation.
The Tribunal held that the issue of leviability of interest under Section 234B is covered in favour of the assessee by the Delhi High Court's decision in GE Packaged Power Inc. The pendency of a review petition before the Supreme Court does not warrant a contrary decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of mentioning points for determination and giving reasons for the decision. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) orders were unsustainable as they failed to provide points for determination and reasons for decision. The appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 dated 11.05.2000 clearly mentioned the assessment year 1997-98, contrary to the assessee's claim. Additionally, a new ground regarding the assessee being a minor at the time of assessment was rejected as it was not raised before any lower authority or the High Court.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding it on merits. The CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merits of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of a hard disk found during a search at a third party's premises without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also noted that no incriminating material was found during the search of the assessee's premises.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment under Section 144 was completed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity being afforded. The assessee had filed a paper book containing written submissions, bank details, affidavits, and copies of orders from lower authorities that were allegedly not properly considered. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the disputed issues to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to file all necessary documents to substantiate their case and cooperate with the AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal explicitly noted that the facts narrated by the revenue authorities were not disputed by both parties.