Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition based on loose papers/WhatsApp messages without corroborative evidence. Since the assessee provided affidavits and Shri Bhagwan Lal owned up to the transaction, the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee a proper hearing and allowing it to submit necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax, as the addition itself was disputed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was not eligible for the concessional tax rate of 25%. This was because the appellant had not exercised the option under Section 115BA of the Act, which is a mandatory condition for availing the lower tax rate, even if other conditions regarding turnover were met.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, quashing the reassessment proceedings. It followed the Rajasthan High Court's decision that when incriminating material belonging to a third party is seized during a search, proceedings under Section 153C should be resorted to, not Section 148.
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that since incriminating material was seized from a third party, proceedings under Section 153C should have been initiated instead of Section 148. The Tribunal confirmed this order, respectfully following the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, following the Rajasthan High Court's decision. The High Court had quashed the Section 148 notice and subsequent assessment, holding that Section 153C should have been invoked when seized material belonged to a third party.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee has a duty to inform the AO of address changes, the circumstances warranted an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had misunderstood the facts and the AO's assessment order. The disallowance of additional depreciation was not justified. Therefore, the addition made on account of this disallowance was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh, considering the legal grounds raised by the assessee, including the validity of the assessment order under Section 144C.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal with a cryptic order without discussing the merits or evidence. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee. The appeal was adjudicated based on the records and the submissions of the Revenue. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal despite the assessee's absence.