Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not address the merits of the case and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found in this case, the additions made by the AO were not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have not received the notices due to the email address pertaining to an ex-employee. While the Revenue argued that the assessee was not serious about the appeal, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to give one more chance to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once the AO was aware of the assessee's death, subsequent notices issued in the name of the deceased and the assessment order passed without bringing the legal heirs on record are invalid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 80 lacs was not sustainable as the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of funds from opening balance and loan repayments. The CIT(A)'s findings on the creditworthiness of creditors were deemed irrelevant in this context.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It then restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO's show cause notice for penalty was ambiguous regarding the nature of the default, indicating a lack of application of mind. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that penalty had been deleted on identical facts in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal held that client code modification (CCM) in share transactions, when done within the same day and within permissible limits, is not inherently mala fide. Following precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal without considering the merits and quantum of tax liability. When an assessee has no taxable income, the provisions of the Income Tax Act do not require them to work out hypothetical advance tax liability. The CIT(A)'s decision was found to be arbitrary and mechanical.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly disposing of the assessee's adjournment applications. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly disposing of the assessee's adjournment applications. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence and submissions, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly disposing of the assessee's adjournment applications. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption solely on the ground of belated filing of the audit report is not sustainable, especially when the legislature provides for condonation of delay. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the belatedly filed Form 10B.