Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 26 of 29
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The AO's disallowances were deemed unsustainable without further investigation.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an express irrevocability clause does not automatically render a trust revocable, and that actual commencement of substantial activities is not a prerequisite for registration. The rejection of the application on these grounds was deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that purchases made from NETG were genuine and commercially expedient, even if made after the agreement's formal expiry, as they discharged subsisting contractual obligations. The disallowance of these purchases by the AO was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee will be given three effective opportunities for hearing to present their case.
The CIT(A) cannot introduce a new source of income for enhancement if it was not considered by the AO. The power to enhance is limited to matters already examined by the AO. Therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) is deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, following the liberal approach adopted by the Supreme Court for condonation of delay. Technicalities should not defeat substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, following the liberal approach adopted by the Supreme Court for condonation of delay. Technicalities should not defeat substantial justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application for non-compliance without fully appreciating the documents submitted by the assessee. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the statutory moratorium in force under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The IBC has an overriding effect over other enactments, including the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved all three ingredients of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: identity of the lenders, creditworthiness of the lenders, and genuineness of the transactions. Both lenders were assessed to tax by the same AO and had sufficient disclosed sources.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire reopening process.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide details, granted one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee successfully explained the source of cash deposits as receipts from her children and her own withdrawals. Similarly, the source of investment in property was explained by the maturity proceeds of her Fixed Deposits. Therefore, the additions made were deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision direction was unsustainable as it proposed a double addition. The cash accumulation was already assessed in the hands of the assessee as the legal representative of his father.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide details, granted one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the fresh notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the surviving period of limitation prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the notice and the reassessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that reopening proceedings initiated against a deceased assessee, even without prior notification to the department, are not sustainable in law. This decision was based on a precedent set by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue and serve the Section 148 notice at the correct address is a fatal flaw that vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing process. The penalty appeal was also treated as consequential.
The Tribunal reduced the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits to Rs. 1 lakh, granting substantial relief to the assessee. It also directed that the assessee be assessed under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE, as the impugned provision was effective from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue and serve the Section 148 notice at the correct address is a fatal flaw that vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
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. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity and adherence to natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to participate in the appellate proceedings and present their case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note, which failed to explicitly state that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's taxable income, was fatal to the validity of the proceedings. This was in line with established case law.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural defect and should not disentitle the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit, especially when it aligns with beneficial provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA). The claim was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E), granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and furnish all relevant documents. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding sufficient cause due to the director's health issues. The NFAC's order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside, and the matter was restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice and that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal on merits without condoning the delay. The delay was condoned in the interest of justice.
The tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing process. The penalty appeal was also treated as consequential.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment made based on such a notice is void ab initio.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E), granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and furnish all relevant documents. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that natural justice demands reconsideration of the assessee's claim for the concessional tax rate. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the sales to the identified bogus firm were indeed bogus. Following a precedent, it sustained an addition of 2% of the entire sale proceeds as commission for accommodation entries, rather than the full sale amount.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it pertains to a single assessee. A common approval for multiple assessment years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that once substantive additions are deleted on merits, protective additions cannot be sustained. Furthermore, additions based on bank statements not seized during the search are beyond the scope of Section 153A, following the Supreme Court ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell.
The Tribunal held that once substantive additions are deleted on merits, protective additions cannot be sustained. Furthermore, additions based on bank statements not seized during the search are beyond the scope of Section 153A, following the Supreme Court ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it pertains to a single assessee. A common approval for multiple assessment years was deemed invalid.
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 acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's return and afford an opportunity for submissions before completing the assessment.