Loading ITAT cases…
273 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the technical dismissal by the CIT(A), decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The penalty order was also set aside as it was based on the assessment order that was being remanded.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set aside proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO initiated them based on material from a third-party search without following proper procedures. Furthermore, the AO failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine or confront the material gathered, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was apparently not granted TDS credit, which required examination at the AO's level. The appeals were restored to the AO for a fresh examination of the TDS issue and to allow credit as per facts.
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 held that the penalty order had no basis as the underlying quantum appeal was set aside. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, with liberty to the AO to re-initiate proceedings if necessary.
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 found that the initial filing was within the due time and the subsequent filing was a revision. Therefore, levying late fee under Section 234E was incorrect.
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 Some appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 dismissed the Revenue's appeals for want of tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on merits regarding the valuation of shares.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO initiated them based on material from a third-party search without following proper procedures. Furthermore, the AO violated principles of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with the material gathered during inquiries.
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 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 belated filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural error and not a fundamental infirmity. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the foreign tax credit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to present documents, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
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 held that notices issued against a dead person are invalid in law. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings stemming from these invalid notices are also bad in law.
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.
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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the technical dismissal by the CIT(A), decided to remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The penalty order was also set aside as it was based on the assessment order that was being remanded.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reopening was based on a change of opinion without new tangible material and lacked jurisdictional requirements. The Tribunal found the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions.
The Tribunal held that since materials from a search on a third party were used for the assessment, Section 153C should have been invoked, not Section 147. As the assessment order was passed under Section 147 without following the procedure under Section 153C, it was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for want of tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on merits regarding the valuation of shares.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all relevant details and bank accounts. This was done in the interest of natural justice.
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 held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. The assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
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 restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for want of tax effect, as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on merits regarding the valuation of shares.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce all sale deeds before the AO.
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 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.
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 held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued after April 1, 2021, it was mandatory to follow the procedure under Section 148A. As this procedure was not followed, the notice and subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval obtained under Section 151(2) was blank and thus not a valid approval. Consequently, the assessment order was also quashed.
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 upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to quash the penalty. The Tribunal found that the issue was debatable and the assessee had disclosed primary facts, thus not being guilty of misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for 80G(5)(iii) registration in the interest of justice. The issue was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to decide on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's pursuit of rectification and the need to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remitted back for a 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 held that since payments were made by cheque, TDS was deducted and deposited, and the assessee provided all necessary details, the disallowance was unjustified. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Inbuilt Merchant Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's pursuit of rectification and the need to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remitted back for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not attracted in this case, considering the genuineness of the payment and the business exigencies. The assessee was found to be a facilitator, and the payments were passed on to ticketing agencies.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed by the NFAC was beyond jurisdiction as it was passed prior to the relevant notification. Following coordinate bench decisions, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. It held that the provision for entry tax should be allowed as it was made for adjustment against advance entry tax paid by the assessee, pending the disposal of a writ petition.
The Tribunal held that the deposit was made from the available cash balance of Rs. 6,50,573.05, which was recognized by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the deposit could not be considered as income from undisclosed sources.
The Tribunal noted that the entire sale consideration was assessed in the hands of the assessee despite there being 16 co-owners. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details.