Loading ITAT cases…
222 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with directions to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, including cross-examination of third parties.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was rejected by the authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions for the same assessee and assessment years, directing the deletion of additions related to disallowance under Section 40A(3), bogus sundry creditors, and estimated commission income.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the rights in the property, acquired through an allotment letter, constitute a capital asset. Therefore, the profit from its sale should be treated as long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the assessees' own valuation, which was lower than the stamp duty value, could not be interfered with as it was part of their return and not an issue raised before the AO. The appellate authority cannot assume jurisdiction over matters not forming part of the assessment order.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the nature of receipts. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue after determining the true factual position and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the nature of receipts. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue after determining the true factual position and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It held that the Assessing Officer should not have mechanically applied Rule 8D without considering the assessee's submissions and accounts.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department had issued Form 3.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the assessees' own valuation, which was lower than the stamp duty value, could not be interfered with as it was part of their return and not an issue raised before the AO. The appellate authority cannot assume jurisdiction over matters not forming part of the assessment order.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, acknowledging their compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, considering the compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to restore it if issues arise with the certificate issuance.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to restore it if issues arise with the certificate issuance.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, acknowledging her compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was duly completed by the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the certificate issuance.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not approved by the authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not approved by the authorities.
The Tribunal held that since there was no change in facts or law from previous assessment years where similar claims were allowed, the principle of consistency should be applied. Therefore, the disallowance was reversed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's advocate's medical condition and the COVID-19 pandemic. It noted that the assessee had now provided bank statements and other documents to support the claim of returned cheques and double entries.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with the condition that it would be restored if the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not approved.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeal was treated as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to present its case and that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with the condition that it would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved by the authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order violated natural justice as proper opportunity was not given. The AO also failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee regarding the share subscriber verification.
The Tribunal held that the 15% accumulation should be calculated on the gross income before deducting expenditures, following the Supreme Court's and jurisdictional High Court's precedents. Therefore, the AO's deduction of expenses before calculating the accumulation was incorrect.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee having complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and obtaining a certificate from the Designated Authority.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the lender companies had confirmed the loans, their addresses were verifiable through postal service, and they possessed sufficient creditworthiness. The Tribunal also noted procedural infirmities in the AO's reliance on a third-party statement.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee claiming to have filed submissions. The CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing primary evidence like invoices, VAT payments, and bank transfers. The AO's reliance on third-party information without confronting the assessee or providing an opportunity for cross-examination was not sustainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the scheme's certificate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee before passing ex parte orders. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee before passing ex parte orders. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The respondent had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee before passing ex parte orders. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee before passing ex parte orders. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee before passing ex parte orders. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after being convinced of sufficient cause. The case was directed to be posted for hearing out of turn if the assessee did not avail the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.