Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 28 of 29
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) breached the principles of natural justice by not issuing further notices to the assessee before rejecting the applications. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable as it was based solely on third-party material without independent corroboration or a cash trail linking the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80IA for AY 2016-17 should be examined and allowed for statistical purposes, considering it was allowed in a subsequent year. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for treating FPS incentives as capital receipts, citing its own prior decision and High Court rulings.
The tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) was valid, following a Delhi High Court decision. However, the CIT(A)'s order on the addition of Rs. 50 lacs was not a speaking order, leading to a remand.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the applications despite the assessee producing relevant records. To prevent injustice, the Tribunal granted the assessee a further opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it was based solely on a 'change of opinion'. The provided documentary evidence had already been considered during the original assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the AO to re-examine the addition related to the father's bank account and recompute the trading addition by applying a 2.5% GP rate.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80IA for AY 2016-17 should be examined and allowed for statistical purposes, considering it was allowed in a subsequent year. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for treating FPS incentives as capital receipts, citing its own prior decision and High Court rulings.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted an opportunity to present its case and evidence before the CIT(E).
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence based on the assessee's plausible reasons for not filing them earlier. The issues were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering these documents.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence based on the assessee's plausible and sufficient reasons for not filing them earlier. The issues were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering these documents.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a further opportunity to represent its case and present evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a further opportunity to represent its case and present evidence.
The Tribunal held that once the substantive addition was sustained in the hands of Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Limited, the protective addition in the assessee's case could not be sustained. Therefore, the protective addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable as it was based solely on third-party material without independent corroboration or a cash trail linking the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the inclusion of one comparable company (Unique Speditorer Private Limited) to the DRP for fresh adjudication due to the need for verification of additional evidence. The issue of working capital adjustment was also restored to the DRP for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted a further opportunity to represent its case and submit evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted a further opportunity to represent its case and submit evidence.
The Tribunal held that tax should be charged at normal rates applicable to individuals and HUFs, not MMR, following its own previous decisions. Regarding surcharge, the CIT(A) had already provided relief, making that ground infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a further opportunity to present its case and submit evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a further opportunity to present its case and submit evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a further opportunity to present its case and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without an effective hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an effective opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Therefore, a delayed filing should not be a ground to deny the FTC claim.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Therefore, a delayed filing should not be a ground to deny the FTC claim.
The Tribunal held that the sale price of power transferred from the eligible unit to the non-eligible unit should be based on the price charged by the State Electricity Board to industrial consumers, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court judgments. The deduction under Section 80-IA was therefore allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, following Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this notice were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the assessee's applications and records. To prevent injustice, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the assessee's applications and records. To prevent injustice, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that once a search under section 132 had taken place, a normal assessment under section 143(3) could not be validly concluded. The assessment order was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were acceptable given the circumstances, including the father's savings, household savings, and funds from the brother for medical expenses. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but considered the assessee's age and literacy level. It set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings that liabilities and loans were non-existent or non-genuine. Summons and production of parties for verification remained uncompiled with.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's reluctance but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant a last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's reluctance but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant a last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
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 found that while the assessee was reluctant to respond to notices, in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of disallowance for employer's PF contribution deposited before the due date and for employee's PF contribution deposited within the due date as per the respective Act. The disallowance for employee's PF contribution deposited after the due date was sustained.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities and that provisions for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally. The Tribunal condoned the 87-day delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that denial of exemption under Section 11 should be restricted to the extent of violation under Section 13. It found that the payments were not to specified concerns as per Section 13(3)(e) and that procedural errors like Form 10B mistakes were not fatal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the quashing of reassessment proceedings under Section 147, that issue attained finality. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was set aside, the consequent penalty proceedings had no basis. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, confirming that employee contributions to PF and ESI must be deposited on or before the due dates specified by the relevant laws to be eligible for deduction. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT was relied upon.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's reluctance but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant a last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.