Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 9 of 29
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging potential communication gaps when an assessee is proceeded ex-parte.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the quantum appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with three opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have focused on the genuineness of the Trust's objects and activities, not just expenditure variations. The rejection based solely on expenditure details was deemed insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits as per Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the cheques totaling Rs. 3 crores were directly paid to the mining department of Haryana through banking channels, the question of identity and creditworthiness of the assessee for these unsecured loans did not arise. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders by providing necessary details during appellate proceedings. The AO failed to make independent inquiries or provide contrary material.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C(2) is a specific provision for property valuation in capital gains cases, overriding the general provision of Section 142A. The assessment was completed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153, as the extended time limit under Section 142A was wrongly applied.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19, upholding the denial of agricultural income exemption. For AY 2020-21, the issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have waited for the completion of the construction and verification of the charitable work before rejecting the registration. The cancellation of registration before the building was complete and allocated was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) by respectfully following the Delhi High Court's decision which had quashed the notices under Section 153C. Since the notices were quashed, there was no basis for the assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19, upholding the denial of agricultural income exemption. For AY 2020-21, the issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19, upholding the denial of agricultural income exemption. For AY 2020-21, the issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter in 2008 should be considered as an agreement for sale, and the SDV on the date of allotment should be adopted as per the proviso to Section 56(2)(x). The AO was not justified in using the SDV on the date of registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on its merits and had proceeded on an erroneous appreciation of facts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 147 without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is null and void. This is because the issuance of Section 143(2) notice is a jurisdictional requirement, even if the return filed in response to Section 148 notice was treated as invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were breached due to the ex-parte rejection without considering adjournment applications. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo determination on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order to prevent miscarriage of justice and directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) is to pass a reasoned order after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were breached due to the ex-parte rejection without considering adjournment applications. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo determination on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years but within ten years, the escaped income must be Rs. 50 lakhs or more as per Section 149(1)(b). Since the final additions were below this limit, the reassessment notices and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years but within ten years, the escaped income must be Rs. 50 lakhs or more as per Section 149(1)(b). Since the final additions were below this limit, the reassessment notices and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee avoided proceedings, relevant details were filed as additional evidence before the CIT(A) which were not verified by the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) by respectfully following the Delhi High Court's decision which had quashed the notices under Section 153C. Since the notices were quashed, there was no basis for the assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19, upholding the denial of agricultural income exemption. For AY 2020-21, the issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years but within ten years, the escaped income must be Rs. 50 lakhs or more as per Section 149(1)(b). Since the final additions were below this limit, the reassessment notices and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years but within ten years, the escaped income must be Rs. 50 lakhs or more as per Section 149(1)(b). Since the final additions were below this limit, the reassessment notices and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) was invalid and defective. The AO had relied on external material beyond the seized documents, making the proceedings under Section 153C void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have waited for the completion of the construction and verification of the charitable work before rejecting the registration. The cancellation of registration before the building was complete and allocated was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that most of the claimed expenses, including finance costs, legal and professional charges, and commission, were directly related to the ongoing project and should be capitalized. Only salary expenses for day-to-day activities were considered legitimate business expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years but within ten years, the escaped income must be Rs. 50 lakhs or more as per Section 149(1)(b). Since the final additions were below this limit, the reassessment notices and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.