Loading ITAT cases…
273 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and noted that the AO and CIT(A) decided the case ex-parte. The Tribunal found that the addition of the entire sale consideration was incorrect as the assessee's share was only 1/14th.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without valid jurisdiction as Section 151A was not yet notified when the assessment proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication along with the quantum appeal. This was done to ensure consistency in the adjudication process.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had withdrawn money from its bank account earlier. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal confirmed Rs. 5,00,000/- out of the total addition and granted relief of Rs. 26,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without valid jurisdiction as Section 151A was not yet notified when the assessment proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as it lacked manual or digital signature. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed without going into the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order no longer survived due to being set aside, the foundation for the penalty also ceased to exist. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary details, including PAN, addresses, and TDS deduction, for the commission payments. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found that disallowance could not be made when TDS was deducted and deposited, and the payments were supported by books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without valid jurisdiction because the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not effective on the date the assessment was made. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication. The penalty imposed was deleted as the quantum appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without valid jurisdiction because the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not effective on the date the assessment was made. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication. The penalty imposed was deleted as the quantum appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without valid jurisdiction because the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not effective on the date the assessment was made. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation order, citing the delay in disposal of the rectification application and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeal against the rectification order was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for 80G registration. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to decide the issue on its merits after providing the assessee with a hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation order, citing the delay in disposal of the rectification application and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeal against the rectification order was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were wrong in making the addition as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the share subscribers, and their assessments were already completed without additions. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without valid jurisdiction because the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not effective on the date the assessment was made. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not sustainable as it was passed without awaiting the mandatory Valuation Officer's report, violating Section 50C(2) and principles of natural justice. The subsequent rectification order was also deemed invalid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the minor delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order on merits after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to seek condonation of delay before the appropriate authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction as it was done before the relevant section conferring jurisdiction was notified. Therefore, the assessment was considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable in law as there was no disclosure during search proceedings and no documents were seized. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty without proper application of mind.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the AO and provided insufficient evidence to the CIT(A). However, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity, the appeal was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries to verify the assessee's claim of fraudulent account opening.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries to verify the assessee's claim of fraudulent account opening.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries to verify the assessee's claim of fraudulent account opening.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries to verify the assessee's claim of fraudulent account opening.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals where reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the limitation period and the approval for reopening was invalid. Some appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining proper bills in the transportation business and the unrealistic net profit if the full disallowance was upheld. Therefore, it modified the disallowance on oil and fuel expenses to 5% of the total expenses.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the Form 10IC and adjudicate the benefit of Section 115BAA or MAT credit.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the consequent assessment were barred by limitation. The approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was also found to be invalid as it was granted by the wrong authority.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence and providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals where reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the limitation period and the approval for reopening was invalid. Some appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, quashing the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessments. This was based on the finding that the notice under Section 148 and the assessment were barred by limitation, and the approval for the notice was invalid.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the Form 10IC and adjudicate the benefit of Section 115BAA or MAT credit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Apex Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The assessment was deemed time-barred as notices were issued after the prescribed period.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to produce its directors before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application, attributing the mistake to a bonafide error by the assessee. The CIT(E)'s order was vacated, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the source of cash deposits, as she was acting as a commission agent and the money was collected from customers and remitted to the companies. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was invalid and quashed it because it was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, violating CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid as they were initiated based on material from a third-party search without proper procedures. Furthermore, the AO violated principles of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with the gathered material and not providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for 80G approval, considering it in the interest of justice. The issue was restored to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the additional claims were not decided and needed to be examined by the AO. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide these claims.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the information used for reopening was available to the Assessing Officer before the time limit for a normal scrutiny assessment expired. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have conducted a scrutiny assessment instead of reopening.
The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing applications under Section 80G(5) are directory in nature and not mandatory. Therefore, rejection based on delay alone is based on technicalities.
The Tribunal held that since the reopening was after three years from the assessment year, the approval of the Pr.CCIT, not the Pr.CIT, was required under Section 151. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a credit co-operative society from surplus funds deposited in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions and noted that the revenue had accepted similar claims in prior assessment years.