Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 22 of 22
The tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 147/148 are void ab initio and without jurisdiction because the reasons for reopening were recorded by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer did not record the reasons as mandated by Section 148(2).
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal is Rs. 50 lakhs, and this applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The tax effect involved in the impugned addition was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular, applicable to pending appeals, raised the limit to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid because the AO incorrectly cited Section 147(b) which does not exist, and the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind due to this error and blank columns in the reasons. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were invalid because the AO incorrectly cited Section 147(b) which does not exist, and the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind due to this error and blank columns in the reasons. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the assessee's right to seek reinstitution if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement is not resolved. The Revenue had no objection to this condition.
The Tribunal held that the date of possession, after completion of construction and renovation, should be considered as the date of acquisition for Section 54 exemption. The Tribunal found that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements for most creditors. The AO's failure to assist in obtaining crucial documents for one creditor and the insufficient time given to others to appear before the AO were noted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the settlement of the matters under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notices issued by the AO were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notices issued by the AO were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notices issued by the AO were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-society is a charitable organization entitled to exemption under Section 11, following the principle of consistency. Previous orders from the CIT(A), ITAT, and Delhi High Court, which also dealt with the proviso to Section 2(15) and mutuality, were in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous order for the same assessee in a preceding assessment year, where identical facts led to the quashing of reopening and deletion of additions. The CIT(A) was bound to follow the Tribunal's order.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notices issued by the AO were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. This decision is subject to the issuance of Form No. 5 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a credible explanation for the source of the cash deposit. The explanation regarding withdrawals for a matrimonial dispute that was settled much later was found to be improbable and contradictory.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the source of investments with necessary evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the AO without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the issue of service of notice u/s 148 had reached finality and was settled by a previous order. Furthermore, the assessee failed to provide any evidence to explain the cash deposits before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the source of investments with necessary evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the AO without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the settlement of the matters under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have decided the penalty appeal before deciding the quantum appeal, as the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A) by the Tribunal. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in an identical case for a different assessment year, held that the interest income earned during the pre-operative period is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was illegal and bad in law due to non-application of mind by the AO and lack of tangible material. The addition of Rs. 11,49,060/- was also deleted as it was based on mere estimation without proper justification.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263, which led to the impugned assessment, was set aside by the ITAT and the departmental appeal was dismissed by the High Court, nothing survived in favour of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act does not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notices issued by the AO were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the settlement of the matter under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeals based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, and the tax effect in these appeals was below that limit.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for default without deciding it on merits. The CIT(A) is required to provide reasons for their decision as per Section 250(6) of the IT Act.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeals based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, and the tax effect in these appeals was below that limit.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn by the assessee. This decision is subject to the issuance of Form No. 5 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The AO's estimation lacked justification, and the CIT(A) correctly accepted the assessee's disclosed gross profit of 24% considering the significant drop in turnover and the fact that books were not rejected in the current year.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO. The Tribunal also noted that the reopening was initiated after more than four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without fulfilling the conditions of the proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for dismissal of the appeal. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.