Loading ITAT cases…
240 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer is aware that returns have been filed in response to a Section 148 notice, it is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before proceeding with the assessment. Since no such notice was issued, the assessment orders are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation due to incorrect calculation of the time period. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer is aware that returns have been filed in response to a Section 148 notice, it is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before proceeding with the assessment. Since no such notice was issued, the assessment orders are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already disclosed the gain from the penny stock transactions in her return of income. Therefore, the addition of the same income under Section 68 constituted a double addition and was without basis. Consequently, the addition under Section 69 was also deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired before the CIT(A)'s order, and the legal heirs were not impleaded. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication after impleading the legal representatives.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to refer the matter to the DVO as per Section 50C(2) when the assessee disputed the consideration value. Passing the order without the DVO's report was a violation.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 154 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that M/s Coral Environment Private Limited had amalgamated with M/s Dahisar Traders Private Limited prior to the notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions with the amalgamated entity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding all grounds of appeal and without providing a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not admissible in light of CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, as the tax effect did not meet the threshold for exceptional clauses.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer is aware that returns have been filed in response to a Section 148 notice, it is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before proceeding with the assessment. Since no such notice was issued, the assessment orders are invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 152 days, considering the reasons provided and the liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the tax effect in all appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, and the AO's addition was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision on the same scrip.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and remitted the matter back. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and decide the application afresh on its merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing on time. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of natural justice and the circumstances preventing timely filing. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the adjustment made under section 143(1) without a show-cause notice was invalid. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to ensure the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12A is not required for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). It also found that the assessee was not required to file a return as its income did not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. However, due to an issue with the inclusion of 'development fund' in receipts, the case was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass an order on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that if the reasons recorded for reopening a case do not ultimately lead to an addition, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to frame an assessment on other issues. Therefore, the additions made were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not cancel the original 12A registration without valid reasons and that the application for renewal under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) should be considered. Consequently, the 80G recognition issue was also restored.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should only consider investments yielding exempt income. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance based on this principle.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books was justified due to unverifiable cash sales and fabricated documents, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as purchases were undisputed and no excess stock was found. Instead, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 1.5% on turnover.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had passed the order without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, both appeals were remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order is invalid and consequently quashed. The Tribunal observed that a perusal of the facts clearly showed that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer commenced the computation in the assessment order with the term 'income returned by assessee'. If the return had not been filed in response to the notice under Section 148, the assessment order should have indicated that the assessee's communication dated September 29, 2022, was invalid and the return filed was non-est. However, the assessment order did not contain any such reference. Instead, it referred to the income returned by the assessee, indicating that the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's communication and treated the return filed on November 3, 2017, as the return in response to the Section 148 notice. Once a return is accepted as filed in response to a Section 148 notice, the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) becomes compulsory. Since the records clearly showed that no such notice was issued, the impugned assessment order was held to be invalid and quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte order of the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not cancel the original 12A registration without valid reasons and that the application for renewal under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) should be considered. Consequently, the 80G recognition issue was also restored.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to pursuing a rectification application. The appeal should have been decided on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed due to the assessee's failure to provide required details. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the order was passed due to non-response and, in the interest of justice, remitted the appeal back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to pass an order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was a procedural delay and not mandatory. In the interest of justice, the delay was condoned, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB is procedural and not mandatory. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had correctly disclosed the long-term capital loss and had added it back to its income, not claiming it as a set-off against current year's income. The Tribunal noted that the sale was supported by documentation and a valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not furnishing the audit report under Section 44AB, as its income was exempt and its accounts were already audited by a government-appointed auditor. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed due to the assessee's failure to provide required details. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 286 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass an order on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the required declaration under Rule 37BA(2) was not filed, the TDS credit should be governed by Rule 37BA(1) and given to the assessee, as the credit appeared in his Form 26AS. The lower authorities erred in denying the credit based on procedural non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were erroneous as the assessee had indeed replied to the notice issued under Section 133(6) and provided relevant documents. Following the precedent of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of approval by the CBDT subsequent to the donation does not affect the assessee's right to claim the deduction, as per the Explanation to Section 35(1)(ii). Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.