Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order passed under Section 263 was bad in law and without jurisdiction. The revision proceedings were initiated without sufficient grounds for interference with the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal followed its own previous order for the assessee's own case, remanding the Section 14A disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation. The commission income mismatch was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the assessee's reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the adjournment petition and the circumstances preventing the assessee's AR from appearing. The statutory right of appeal cannot be lightly disregarded.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the notification by the government does not affect donations made when the notification was in force. The assessee acted in bonafide belief, and subsequent events cannot disturb this claim.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was invalid as it did not specify the charges, and no statement under section 132(4) was recorded from the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied was bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the assessee's application under the 'Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not accepted, the appeal would be revived.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the additional depreciation claim, following established judicial precedent. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance, as it was restored for factual verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following CBDT circulars and a precedent, the Tribunal held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are to be treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending if the assessee intended to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme's authority did not accept their intention.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals in light of their intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the competent authority accepting the assessee's intention.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals in light of their intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the competent authority accepting the assessee's intention under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was not permissible and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was not permissible and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals in light of their intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the competent authority accepting the assessee's intention under the scheme.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending if the assessee intended to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee intended to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal clarified that this withdrawal would not prejudice the Revenue's decision on the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow carry forward of losses on commodity trading as business loss, delete the addition for unexplained cash credit by the assessee's brother, and allow the short-term capital loss. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding violation of Rule 46A.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a speaking order and without deciding the grounds raised by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the original Section 263 order was quashed, the subsequent assessment orders and the CIT(A)'s order upholding them were null and void. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was cancelled.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition for non-vendible coal, relying on its own previous decision. The issue of additional depreciation was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all details.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition for non-vendible coal, relying on its own previous decision. The issue of additional depreciation was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all details.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition for non-vendible coal, relying on its own previous decision. The issue of additional depreciation was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all details.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition for non-vendible coal, relying on its own previous decision. The issue of additional depreciation was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all details.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the original Section 263 order was quashed, the subsequent assessment orders and the CIT(A)'s order upholding them were null and void. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was cancelled.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without application of mind, erroneously concluding the assessee did not participate. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order, did not decide the appeal ground-wise, and relied on case laws without discussing the assessee's facts or grievances. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender. The AO failed to disprove the documents provided by the assessee and could not make an addition based solely on the statement of an ex-director without further investigation.
The Tribunal held that the admitted fact of non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) renders the assessment orders bad in law. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the assessment orders were quashed.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's own funds were significantly higher than its investments, and therefore, the presumption that interest-free funds were used for interest-free investments applied. The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the admitted fact of non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) renders the assessment orders bad in law. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention regarding the CIT(A)'s powers. Both parties agreed that the issue should be set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, stating that Section 68 applies to the previous year relevant to the assessment year in issue. The Tribunal also rejected other grounds of appeal concerning expenditure disallowance and other cash credit additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order had not independently examined the detailed evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) was due to lack of proper service and a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the factual findings. It agreed that netting of interest is permissible and that income already taxed in a prior year cannot be taxed again, avoiding double taxation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a grant-in-aid received from the Government on revenue account should be considered as income. The CIT(A)'s view that it cannot be income simply because due process was followed was rejected.
The Tribunal held that 'Government Securities' are not necessarily bonds or debentures for the purpose of Section 48 and that indexation benefit is not to be denied merely because an asset yields a fixed return. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without addressing the issue of proper notice. The AO also noted a lack of explanation from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not shown interest in prosecuting the appeal despite repeated opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the notice under Section 143(2) was issued prior to the assessee filing a return in response to the notice under Section 148. Consequently, the revision order passed under Section 263 was also quashed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the assessment order and records. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable when shares are issued for consideration other than cash, such as in an exchange of shares. The addition made by the AO was erroneously invoked.
The tribunal set aside the disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was because the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee or consider its written submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was not permissible. It was also noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without addressing the issue of proper notice. The AO also noted a lack of explanation from the assessee.