Loading ITAT cases…
42 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal restored the issues of bus transfer and related interest to the AO for verification, as the transfer's nature and subsequent return of buses needed further examination. The addition on account of excess salary was dismissed, and the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals, as evidenced by their consistent absence and failure to file adjournment applications. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that since the CESTAT had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, the AO's additions based on that order were not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to excise duty, VAT, and unexplained investment.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For unexplained foreign travel expenditure, additions were reduced by 50%. For unexplained jewellery investment, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. For unexplained opening capital, the issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals, as evidenced by their consistent absence and failure to file adjournment applications. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals, as evidenced by their consistent absence and failure to file adjournment applications. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that since the CESTAT had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, the AO's additions based on that order were not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to excise duty, VAT, and unexplained investment.
The Tribunal found that while the rejection of books was justified due to specific defects, the 8% profit estimation was arbitrary for a social welfare authority. The profit rate was restricted to 4%. The issue of brought forward losses was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing and the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals. For unexplained foreign travel expenditure, additions were reduced by 50%. For unexplained jewellery investment, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. For unexplained opening capital, the issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals. Based on the non-appearance and lack of any application for adjournment, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals, as evidenced by their consistent absence and failure to file adjournment applications. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings was issued in a casual manner without a specific charge, rendering it bad in law. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) applied a different sub-section of Section 271AAB without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard on this aspect.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in pursuing their appeals, as evidenced by their consistent absence and failure to file adjournment applications. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid and untenable as they failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue deserved another opportunity to present evidence regarding the service of notice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was remanded back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid and untenable as they failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The Tribunal found that an identical issue had been dealt with previously by the same bench, where the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a valuation report from the Departmental Valuation Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to do the same in this case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the penalty orders.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, held that the principles of natural justice were violated by not providing an oral hearing. The case was set aside to the Pr. CIT for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for oral submissions.
The Tribunal found that the dissolution certificate used by the CIT(A) to justify the deletion of creditors was not conclusive. It also noted the lack of confirmation from creditors for cash payments. Therefore, the issue of creditors required further examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined all the facts presented by the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not file any adjournment application. It was concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the exemption, following binding precedents and CBDT circulars. The appellate powers are co-terminus with the assessing officer, allowing for claims not made before the AO.
The Tribunal held that merely allowing depreciation to the firm was not sufficient to prove the transfer of property to the firm. However, it noted that a partnership firm can acquire property in the name of its partners and that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated this aspect. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the land was purchased for business purposes and was shown as stock-in-trade in the balance sheet filed before the show-cause notice. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that merely allowing depreciation to the firm was not sufficient to prove the transfer of property to the firm. However, it noted that a partnership firm can acquire property in the name of its partners and that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated this aspect. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act was wrongly invoked for AY 2012-13 because the assessee had already filed its return before the search date, thus not fulfilling the conditions for a 'specified previous year' under that section. The AO should have considered Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal found that the reopening of the assessment was valid as there was information from SEBI indicating escapement of income and the assessee was given due opportunity. However, regarding the addition for alleged profit and loss shifted by client code modification, the Tribunal found the impact to be less than 1% and no evidence of deliberate modification, directing the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the commission expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and were not paid to related parties. The revenue authorities had not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the issuance of notice under Section 148. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the commodity trading loss should be allowed to be set off against other income as the genuineness of the transactions was not disputed, despite the lack of audit. However, the addition for unexplained opening cash balance was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Since the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely, it is liable to be dismissed.