Loading ITAT cases…
121 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) did not consider the prior assessment year's treatment of the credit balance. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the act of furnishing the return is complete when uploaded to the departmental server, and the assessee cannot be held responsible for subsequent server-side delays in acknowledgement generation. Therefore, interest under Section 234A should not be levied if the return was electronically signed and uploaded on or before the due date.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's explanation that the cash belonged to multiple family members and was withdrawn from different bank accounts. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was levied on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not bona fide and did not constitute a reasonable cause. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the successor company is entitled to the tax credits (TDS, Advance Tax, Self-Assessment Tax) of the predecessor company, especially when the amalgamation is effective retrospectively. The CIT(A) had erred in denying these credits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding improper service of notice under Section 148 and the need to verify the source of deposits. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must verify the service of notice and the source of the Rs. 20 lakhs deposit.
The Tribunal held that the successor company is entitled to the tax credits (TDS, Advance Tax, Self-Assessment Tax) of the predecessor company, especially when the amalgamation is effective retrospectively. The CIT(A) had erred in denying these credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly dealt with the issues regarding the interpretation of 'any' long term capital asset and the utilization of sale proceeds. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the successor company is entitled to the tax credits (TDS, Advance Tax, Self-Assessment Tax) of the predecessor company, especially when the amalgamation is effective retrospectively. The CIT(A) had erred in denying these credits.
The Tribunal held that the successor company is entitled to the tax credits (TDS, Advance Tax, Self-Assessment Tax) of the predecessor company, especially when the amalgamation is effective retrospectively. The CIT(A) had erred in denying these credits.
The Tribunal held that the successor company is entitled to the tax credits (TDS, Advance Tax, Self-Assessment Tax) of the predecessor company, especially when the amalgamation is effective retrospectively. The CIT(A) had erred in denying these credits.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was passed in a casual and negligent manner, copy-pasting findings from another assessee's case. Furthermore, the civil court had later declared the seller's title void, making additions based on the sale unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the addition was sustained by the CIT(A) in a cryptic order. Considering the assessee's submission that they could substantiate the cash deposit from business cash available, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that income must be taxed in the year of accrual, regardless of when invoices were raised or payments were received. The assessee's argument of tax neutrality was rejected as it would distort the accounting of expenses and income in the correct year.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of not being aware of hearing dates due to email discrepancy was plausible. The material produced by the assessee before the Tribunal was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details, considering the interest of justice.