Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) needed to be set aside as both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR agreed that the cases of other co-owners, which are pending, should be heard together with the present case to maintain consistency. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that neither the assessment order nor the CIT(A)'s order were passed on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal held that the mandatory procedure under section 148A was not followed, which vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Additionally, the seized material cited by the AO was found to be illegible and did not directly implicate the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing, stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's submission that non-prosecution was due to a bona fide reason and that the assessee was willing to make an effective representation.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the first appeal by CIT(A) was against the mandate of natural justice and section 250(6) as it was an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the inspection and verification reports were not furnished to the assessee. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition related to cash deposits was incorrect as the assessee's purchase and sales registers were not disputed and the books of account were not rejected. However, the addition related to capital introduction was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication due to procedural irregularities and lack of proper inquiry by the CIT(A).
The tribunal remanded the issue of provision for standard assets to the AO for verification of the permissible limit. The disallowance of audit fees was also remanded to the AO for examining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business. The disallowance of ESI expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO's adverse inferences based on surrounding circumstances like common postal dispatch and low returned income were insufficient to justify additions under Section 68. It also noted that similar additions for other creditors were deleted, indicating a contradictory approach.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and did not meet the requirements of Section 250(6). Considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's limited understanding due to being from a smaller place, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and being unfamiliar with tax procedures. Similar issues in connected cases were being remanded, warranting consistency. The Tribunal restored the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 per case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) lacked the jurisdiction to direct the initiation of fresh reassessment proceedings against a legal heir, especially when the initial reassessment proceedings were found to be invalid. The direction to initiate proceedings against Shri Nishant Dattatray Sonar was also considered baseless as he was not a party to the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was due to a bona fide misunderstanding regarding the validity of the AO's order. The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under section 11/12 solely on account of a procedural lapse in filing the audit report (Form 10B) without audited accounts was unjustified, as the law considers this requirement directory.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the report from the AO, which was relied upon by the CIT(A), was not disclosed to the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had focused on interest income from banks, overlooking the assessee's claim for deduction related to its core business activities of providing credit and agricultural supplies. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to have its claim examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable due to violation of natural justice as the assessee was not provided with the statements of sellers nor given an opportunity for cross-examination. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) should have conducted proper inquiries and verification regarding loan transactions based on affidavits, examining identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of donors. The CIT(A) also failed to do this. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not based on merits, particularly as additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) was not considered. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits.