Loading ITAT cases…
95 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. The principles of natural justice were violated as the appeal was not disposed of on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost and was granted three effective opportunities to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's margin was higher than the average margin of the comparable companies, thus the transaction was at arm's length. The deletion of the ALP adjustment by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate orders were passed without proper adjudication as contemplated by law. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was restored if the assessee failed to avail the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' for technical reasons.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate orders were passed without proper adjudication as contemplated by law. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn and dismissed it, with liberty to the Revenue to move for recalling the order if the scheme settlement failed. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view by accepting the assessee's LTCG after considering the available documents and evidence. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be unsustainable as no specific error in the AO's assessment was pointed out, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order did not discuss the share capital/premium issue in light of the provided details. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate opportunities to the assessee to produce its director. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. This was due to lack of proof of service of notices and the CIT(Appeals)'s order not being well-reasoned.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate orders were passed without proper discussion of evidence and that the Assessing Officer relied on statements collected behind the assessee's back. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to apply an 8% profit rate on civil construction business receipts, citing judicial consistency and the absence of regular books. The addition on short-term capital gains was also confirmed based on prior tribunal orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot survive when the basis for it has been removed by the remittal of the quantum assessment. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled, but the AO was given liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if permissible after the fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove a nexus between interest-bearing borrowed funds and the interest-free advance. It also noted that the assessee's own funds were sufficient for the advance, and the advance was for commercial expediency.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate orders were passed without proper discussion of evidence and that the Assessing Officer relied on statements collected behind the assessee's back. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, as it did not specify points for determination, the decision thereon, or the reasons for the decision. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to apply an 8% profit rate on civil construction business receipts, citing judicial consistency and the absence of regular books. The addition on short-term capital gains was also confirmed based on prior tribunal orders.
The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeal as dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the assessee filing the necessary forms for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue can seek withdrawal of its appeal if the scheme is accepted.
The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeal as dismissed as withdrawn, subject to the assessee filing the necessary forms for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The order can be recalled if the scheme is not accepted or if the assessee fails to comply.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in making the ad hoc disallowance. The assessee had provided a certificate from the cellular operator and detailed transaction records, which were not rebutted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/-. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after hearing the assessee, in compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the bank should not be deemed an assessee in default if the recipients of the interest income have already paid the tax due on that income and can provide proof. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify this compliance.
The Tribunal held that the bank should not be deemed an assessee in default if the recipients of the interest income have already paid the tax due on that income and can provide proof. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify this compliance.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had made detailed inquiries and recorded the statements of the suppliers, who confirmed no goods were supplied. The reopening was based on information from the Sales Tax Department, which indicated the suppliers were entry operators. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the disallowance based on these findings.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals based on their opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the orders if the scheme authorities did not accept their declarations.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the written submissions and provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had made detailed inquiries and recorded the statements of the suppliers, who confirmed no goods were supplied. The reopening was based on information from the Sales Tax Department, which indicated the suppliers were entry operators. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the disallowance based on these findings.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to illness and delayed receipt of a notice. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals based on their opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the orders if the scheme authorities did not accept their declarations.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had made detailed inquiries and recorded the statements of the suppliers, who confirmed no goods were supplied. The reopening was based on information from the Sales Tax Department, which indicated the suppliers were entry operators. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the disallowance based on these findings.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the assessee's written submission and grant another opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to dispose of the appeal afresh on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard, as notices were returned with 'Insufficient address'. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act by not disposing of the appeal with a reasoned order. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving notices. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they intended to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was given liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal is subject to the competent authority accepting the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee is at liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme authority does not accept their intention.