Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses cannot be carried forward and set off if returns of income were not filed for those years. However, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after considering the provided chart.
The Tribunal held that once the return of income filed under Section 153A is accepted, the Assessing Officer has no locus standi to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) with reference to the original return filed under Section 139(1). The penalty was not maintainable as the assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal condoned the delay finding it to be for bonafide and genuine reasons. It was held that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee and the appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) found the assessee did not provide evidence despite opportunities. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in similar cases, where the addition on account of long-term capital gain from the sale of shares was deleted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences had a strong bearing on the correct determination and assessment of income. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted these evidences and remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after considering the admitted evidences.
The Tribunal condoned the 312-day delay, finding the reasons genuine and bona fide. The quantum appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits, and the penalty appeals were quashed as their foundation was gone, with liberty to the AO to re-initiate penalty proceedings if required.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeal and admitted it for adjudication. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order which was based on the finding that the assessment was framed against a non-existent entity, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the 312-day delay, finding the reasons genuine and bona fide. The quantum appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits, and the penalty appeals were quashed as their foundation was gone, with liberty to the AO to re-initiate penalty proceedings if required.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case on its merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order based on available records.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate their claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities. However, to ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence including identity, capacity, and source of funds for the loans, as well as proof of repayment and deduction of tax at source on interest paid. The CIT(A) had also considered these evidences and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the books of accounts were seized by the service tax authorities and could not be produced before the AO and CIT(A), the orders were passed without considering them. To ensure justice, the cases were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2017, was retrospective. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to refer the issue to the Transfer Pricing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2017, was retrospective. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction to refer the issue to the Transfer Pricing Officer.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard, and cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the registration under Section 80G cannot be denied solely for the reason of late filing of Form 10AB. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the Commissioner for a decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for deduction under Section 80IE, noting that the initial assessment year had losses and the deduction was first claimed in a subsequent year. The Tribunal also found that additions made by the AO towards ALP and notional interest were part of business profits eligible for deduction.