Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw its appeals. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as it became infructuous due to the MAP settlement.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the written request from the assessee's counsel. In light of the assessee's request, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the pending appeals.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment.
The Tribunal considered the written request from the assessee's counsel. In light of the assessee's request, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the pending appeals.
The Tribunal considered the written request from the assessee's counsel. In light of the assessee's request, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessment and penalty orders lacked independent findings and reasoned decisions, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment and penalty orders lacked independent findings and reasoned decisions, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the explanation and evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to furnish evidence of non-recoverability of the amount due to the payer company's liquidation. The AO was asked to re-examine the issue after considering the new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer's office. Since the Assessing Officer was in Agra, the appeal should have been filed before the ITAT, Agra Bench, not Delhi.
Following the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which is applicable to all pending appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and had passed non-speaking orders. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and had passed non-speaking orders. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the case and had passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was unsustainable as it did not decide the appeal on merits and provide reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was based has been deleted, the penalty is not sustainable in law and therefore deleted it.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered vital documents, including the Civil Court's order setting aside the sale deed. The AO also passed the assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to issue a fresh show cause notice for enhancement after the matter was set aside, rendering the impugned order void. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate its claims regarding work-in-progress.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR's contention regarding the non-issuance of a section 143(2) notice and the absence of a return filed in response to a section 148 notice required verification. Both parties agreed to set aside the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contentions regarding the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) and the filing of a return required verification. Both parties agreed to set aside the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the approvals granted by the Additional CIT and Principal CIT for issuing notice under Section 148 were mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as bad in law.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider the response to summons issued under Section 133(6) and the evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the AO for a fresh decision, the penalty appeal should also be restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication. The assessee should be given an adequate opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that a penalty cannot survive if the underlying addition giving rise to it has been set aside. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside and the issue remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the functional profile of the assessee's project offices was incorrectly characterized by the TPO. It also found that certain comparable companies were not appropriate and directed their exclusion. Risk adjustments were deemed warranted due to differences in risk profiles.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue's contentions regarding the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) and the filing of a return required verification. Both parties agreed to set aside the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
Since the quantum addition giving rise to the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty itself does not survive. Consequently, the penalty is deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the modified ground of appeal due to a factual error in the original ground. In the interest of justice, the issues in dispute were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO rightly made the addition under Section 69C as the assessee failed to produce books of accounts or offer explanations for the bogus purchases. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition after reviewing the evidence.
The Tribunal found the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings to be genuine. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the valuation report of the assessee was not considered by the AO and CIT(A). Since no reasons were given for adopting the collector rate, the issue was remanded back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making a disallowance under Section 14A without obtaining the necessary approval. Therefore, the assessment order was considered void ab initio.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in the amount from Rs. 4,93,160/- to Rs. 49,36,160/-. All other contents of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the proper service of notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for hearing to the assessee, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C, which creates a deeming fiction for sale consideration, is not applicable for calculating exemption under Section 54F. The exemption under Section 54F should be calculated based on the actual sale consideration received.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient reasoning for adopting the circle rate and failed to consider the assessee's evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the grounds of appeal were not provided despite multiple opportunities. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again after rectifying the defect.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Delhi High Court's decisions are binding as the assessee's jurisdiction and PAN were transferred to Delhi, and the appeal was decided by the CIT(A) in New Delhi. The assessee is entitled to exemption as the entire sale proceeds were invested in the property purchased in his wife's name.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate reasoning for confirming the Assessing Officer's order and failed to consider the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered certain documents filed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after considering all evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing.