Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 6 of 17
The Tribunal agreed that the AO erred by ignoring withdrawals and directed that the addition be restricted to the peak credit in the bank account after considering cash in hand.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's applications without proper consideration of facts and non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's applications without proper consideration of facts and non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish his status as a legal representative as defined by law. Therefore, the appeal was rejected at this stage.
The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases, stating it would not be treated as a precedent. The assessee's book entries were rejected to this extent.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) interpreted the term 'education' too narrowly, ignoring available judicial precedents. The assessee was given an opportunity to present all facts to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemptions) was ex-parte and non-speaking. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The reasoning was that a proper and speaking order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, would be in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte and non-speaking order rejecting an application for registration under Section 12A is unsustainable and warrants a remand for fresh adjudication. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s 8% profit estimation was high. Considering the assessee's average GP of preceding and succeeding years, the Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 2% of total purchases.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the contingent liabilities, there was no basis for making a disallowance. The disallowance was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed an ex-parte order due to non-submission of documents. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication de novo.
The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in favour of the revenue but also noted a coordinate bench's order restoring similar matters to the AO for factual verification. The Tribunal decided to follow the latter approach.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was passed due to non-submission of required documents. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling on similar grounds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable as it failed to provide independent reasoning and comply with Section 250(6). The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not properly consider the application. To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee a further opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal primarily on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and the AO had not conducted further verification.
The Tribunal held that the interest on income tax refund is attributable to the banking business of the cooperative society. Following a Special Bench decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding sales transactions. The AO's addition under Section 69A was based on surmise and conjecture, as the transactions were explained as sales and the receipts were duly credited in the books of accounts. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were breached as the CIT(E) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard before rejecting the application. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the registered valuer's report without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as per Section 55A of the Act. The AO should have obtained a DVO's report if he was not satisfied with the valuer's estimate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, and evidence of subsequent repayment with interest. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal found that repayment of loans along with interest proves the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without affording the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the notices issued by the AO had unreasonably short timelines, denying the assessee a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A)'s ex parte order was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and suggesting a rectification application for interest issues. The CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits, as interest computation is appealable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee was not provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard and therefore set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee was not provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard and therefore set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order under which the penalty was initiated has been set aside by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the penalty has no basis and is deleted. The AO is at liberty to reinitiate penalty proceedings if circumstances warrant in the fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are governed by Section 194C of the Act, not Section 194I, based on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the assessee rightly deducted tax at source under Section 194C.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned. The Tribunal agreed that the non-disclosure of capital in earlier ITRs was a procedural lapse, not substantive evidence of unexplained income, especially when the assessee provided evidence of accumulated capital from disclosed sources.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the application and the records produced by the assessee. To prevent miscarriage of justice, a further opportunity was granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have ensured proper service of notices before rejecting the assessee's application. To ensure natural justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity.
The Tribunal, considering the request for remanding the matter and the lack of objection from the Revenue, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to furnish evidence. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the applications were not properly considered by the CIT(E) despite the assessee producing relevant records. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal granted a further opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.
The Tribunal found that the bank statements and certificate clearly indicated a wrong credit entry to the assessee's account, with the amount subsequently credited to the brother's account. The lower authorities failed to properly appreciate these facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have ensured proper service of notices before rejecting the assessee's claim. The assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and also before the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues on merit.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and, with no objection from the Revenue, granted the permission. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the applications were not properly considered by the CIT(E) despite the assessee producing relevant records. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal granted a further opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted a further opportunity to present its case and submit evidence.
The Tribunal found that the explanation for the delay did not appear malafide and that the assessee had not gained anything by the delay. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were breached by the CIT(E) rejecting the application ex-parte. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh determination on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be without malafide intent. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.