Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 17 of 17
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. This was done in the interest of substantive justice, considering the denial of opportunity to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not avail the opportunities provided by the CIT(Exemptions). However, considering the facts, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration, directing that an adequate opportunity of being heard be provided.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business but found that the assessee had not fully discharged the onus of proof. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the sugar mill business and that the assessee had filed relevant details. However, the assessee did not fully discharge its onus of proof. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, reduced the addition to Rs. 1 lakh, stating it would not be treated as a precedent. The assessee was also directed to be assessed under normal provisions for section 115BBE as it applies from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal considered the request of the learned Authorized Representative and allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, emphasizing a liberal approach to condonation to do substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO did not establish a live link or rational connection with the escapement of income. The information provided was general and did not quantify or demonstrate any specific escapement of income by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148, issued on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16, was not sustainable based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without an effective hearing and without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to bonafide reasons. Consequently, both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to bonafide reasons. Consequently, both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish supporting evidence for its commission expenses. The assessee was also directed to comply with the AO's requirements.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) order was passed without following the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing.