Loading ITAT cases…
976 orders · Page 20 of 20
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s actions violated the principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without taking on record the assessee's submissions. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court judgments. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not applicable based on the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was based on assumption without cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not applicable in this case, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was based on assumption without cogent evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) finding sufficient cause. Considering the small demand and the assessee's old age, the Tribunal decided to finalize the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) with supporting documents. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the application on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. It found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the amount was a loan, not a gift, supported by a confirmation letter from the lender and the lender's Will bequeathing the amount to the assessee's wife. Therefore, the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(a) was unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's lack of response. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) cannot deny registration solely on the grounds of alleged commercial activities or profit margins, as the inquiry at the registration stage is limited to the genuineness of objects and activities. The issue of application of income is for assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) cannot deny registration solely on the grounds of alleged commercial activities or profit margins, as the inquiry at the registration stage is limited to the genuineness of objects and activities. The issue of application of income is for assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to proceed with the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities failed to refer the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) as mandated by Section 50C(2). The AO is directed to refer the valuation to the DVO and proceed accordingly after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not fully justified as the revenue failed to rebut the assessee's contentions regarding loans from relatives and credit card payments by another person. However, a lump-sum addition of 6% of total bank credit and card payments was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE was not applicable as the credits were part of the assessee's business turnover.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB(1A) has no basis and must also be deleted. The foundation for the penalty has been removed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty levied under Section 271AAB(1A) has no basis and must also be deleted. The foundation for the penalty has been removed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. It further found that the offshore supplies and repairs were concluded outside India, making the receipts non-taxable in India.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) failed to establish that advances were made to members and that the lack of registration for one agreement was immaterial as the genuineness of the advance was not doubted. The Tribunal concluded that the advances for a school bus and acquisition of an educational institute were in furtherance of the trust's charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible time limit as per Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment order was rendered unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that electrical installations are part of "Plant and Machinery" eligible for higher depreciation, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's case. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the PCIT's order under section 263, which directed the addition of the entire bogus purchase, was quashed by the ITAT, the subsequent assessment order giving effect to it had no basis. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations are capital receipts and exempt from taxation under Section 11(1)(d). Since the assessee's total income was below the taxable limit, filing Form 10B was not mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance arose from a debatable and interpretational issue regarding TDS provisions. Since the assessee had a bona fide belief and the issue was not clearly established as under-reporting of income, the penalty under Section 270A was deleted.