Loading ITAT cases…
308 tribunal orders from the Guwahati bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 308 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for ten persons/entities together was not a valid approval and was granted mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer had merely reproduced information from the Investigation Wing without recording independent reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. This 'borrowed satisfaction' without proper application of mind rendered the reopening under Section 147/148 and the subsequent assessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was without jurisdiction as the relevant provisions of Section 151A were notified on the same day the order was framed. Furthermore, the reopening of assessment was deemed bad in law due to non-application of mind and borrowed satisfaction, as the assessee had no dealings with the brokers whose statements were relied upon by the AO. The Tribunal quashed the assessment and the reopening.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee consistently followed the Percentage of Completion method and had offered income for taxation in subsequent years. Restoring the AO's addition would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had incorrectly applied accounting standards and ignored the assessee's established accounting policy.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that once the assessee provides cogent evidence of repaying the loans in subsequent assessment years, an addition under Section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that such repayment effectively establishes the genuineness of the transactions, identity of the lenders, and their creditworthiness, citing precedents from various High Courts.
The Tribunal found that the AO's denial of a mandatory personal hearing, despite the assessee's request, violated Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act. It concluded that the addition under Section 69C was based on suspicion and that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment with proper opportunity granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The corporate guarantee fee was restricted to 0.5% based on a coordinate bench ruling, and excise duty exemption was treated as a capital receipt not includible for MAT computation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine based on procedural delays and lack of English translations, thereby denying the assessee a proper hearing on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and compliance with Rule 46A. The findings for AY 2016-17 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2022-23 as the facts were identical.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without obtaining a remand report, which is a contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) also failed to properly examine the source and quantum of income or its correlation to the bank deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence.
Considering the lack of proper compliance by the assessee's consultant before both the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of both lower authorities. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard and submit explanations, with a directive not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
Citing lack of proper representation and ex-parte assessments at lower levels, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years. It remanded the cases back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment, ensuring the assessee a full opportunity to present her case and substantiate her claim for exemption under section 10(26).
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the assessee's contention regarding the year of loan receipt. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh examination of facts and to determine the correct assessment year in which the liability for deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act arose.
Citing lack of proper representation and ex-parte assessments at lower levels, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for both assessment years. It remanded the cases back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment, ensuring the assessee a full opportunity to present her case and substantiate her claim for exemption under section 10(26).
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, allow further submissions following Rule 46A, and involve the AO if necessary, ensuring a speaking order is passed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine based on procedural delays and lack of English translations, thereby denying the assessee a proper hearing on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and compliance with Rule 46A. The findings for AY 2016-17 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2022-23 as the facts were identical.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was under Section 144 and involved Section 10(26) of the Act. Considering the CIT(A)'s dismissal based on filing delay, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A)'s order and the original assessment order, remanding the case to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, quashing the reassessment proceedings. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the department failed to prove the investment was made by the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeals. Observing the assessee's non-representation before the lower authorities, and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, expecting the assessee to respond promptly to future notices.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11, despite the changes in registration provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeals. Observing the assessee's non-representation before the lower authorities, and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, expecting the assessee to respond promptly to future notices.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, quashing the reassessment proceedings. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the department failed to prove the investment was made by the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) carefully reviewed the Ld. DR's arguments and the case records. The Tribunal determined that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly applied the legal provisions based on its findings in paragraph 6.2 of the impugned order and had validly granted relief. Consequently, the ITAT decided not to intervene with the CIT(A)'s conclusions.
The Tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedents (Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Esha Bhattacharjee) advocating a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, found the assessee's explanation credible and that the delay was not willful. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delays in all four appeals and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on suspicion and generalized allegations without confronting the assessee with adverse material or allowing cross-examination of third parties. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, which was not adequately dealt with by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied heavily on the assessee's submissions and a sketchy remand report from the AO, without sufficient verification. The Tribunal noted issues with the reliance on IDS declarations by the assessee's son and self-serving confirmations from CMJ Foundation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied heavily on the assessee's submissions and a sketchy remand report from the AO, without sufficient verification. The Tribunal noted issues with the reliance on IDS declarations by the assessee's son and self-serving confirmations from CMJ Foundation.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not sufficiently investigated the genuineness of the sources of funds, including gifts and transactions with M/s CMJ Foundation, and the implications of an ongoing CID investigation against the assessee. Noting that IDS benefits do not extend to income from certain illegal activities, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to segregate year-specific deposits, verify the veracity of gifts, examine the genuineness of transactions with CMJ Foundation and Shri CM Jha, and ascertain the status of the CID case against the assessee.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a request to withdraw the appeal, which was not opposed by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on incorrect facts and without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The notice under Section 148 was issued despite the assessee clarifying the source of funds, making the reopening bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid because it only specified 'computer aided scrutiny selection' and did not adhere to the CBDT instructions requiring the type of scrutiny to be mentioned. It emphasized that revenue authorities are bound by CBDT instructions, and any violation renders the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid. Citing previous co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the assessment framed under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay, asserting that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with similar directions.
The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay, asserting that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with similar directions.
The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay, asserting that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with similar directions.