Loading ITAT cases…
240 orders · Page 2 of 5
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 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 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 compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were invalid because the information originated from a search, and therefore, Section 153C should have been invoked. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documentation for the share subscribers, including their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The mere fact that shares were issued at a high premium is not a valid ground for addition when all evidence is in order.
The Tribunal held that since a similar transaction with the same company was accepted as genuine in a subsequent assessment year after examination by the Assessing Officer, the addition made for the impugned assessment year treating the loan as bogus was incorrect.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were not sustainable because the information originated from a search, and therefore, Section 153C should have been invoked. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to file replies and the CIT(Appeals) to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to file replies and the CIT(Appeals) to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not admissible in light of CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not point out any defects in the assessee's books of account to justify their rejection under Section 145(3). Therefore, the rejection of books of account was set aside, and the AO was directed to accept the net profit declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that unexplained investments found during a search should be taxed in the year of discovery. Therefore, the addition of the locker contents to the assessment year 2018-19 was not permissible.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO. The assessee was directed to produce directors of the first and second layer applicant companies to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to file replies and the CIT(Appeals) to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to file replies and the CIT(Appeals) to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid as they were based on a 'change of opinion' and incorrect assumptions of fact. The AO had already examined the issue in the original assessment, and there was no fresh tangible material to justify reopening.
The Tribunal held that the original registration could not be cancelled without a show-cause notice. Therefore, the cancellation was reversed, and the application for renewal under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to file replies and the CIT(Appeals) to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the original registration could not be cancelled without a show-cause notice. Therefore, the cancellation was reversed, and the application for renewal under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, following a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to file replies and the CIT(Appeals) to strictly comply with Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A), directing the AO to recompute the income after considering the trust deed, past history, and nature of expenses. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the claim for statutory deductions on rental income.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issues of capital gains and salary income to the AO for fresh consideration, taking into account the valuation report and Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. As per Section 151, approval for such issuance should have been granted by the PCCIT, not the PCIT. Therefore, the reopening and assessment order are invalid.
The Tribunal held that if no addition is made for the income that formed the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening, the AO cannot make any other addition discovered during the reassessment proceedings. The addition of ₹1,57,00,000 was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on intangible assets is allowable as per previous rulings in the assessee's own case. Regarding the interest income, it was noted that the AO had rectified the double taxation error under Section 154.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 270A was defective as it mentioned 'under-reporting of income' while the penalty was levied for 'mis-reporting of income', and it failed to specify the relevant clauses of Section 270A. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was a co-owner and her sons, who were also co-owners of the same properties, were assessed at 'NIL' income, the same valuation should be followed for the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
The tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the initial appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on intangible assets is allowable as per previous rulings in the assessee's own case. Regarding the interest income, it was noted that the AO had rectified the double taxation error under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Virendra Dhannani, whose statement was crucial to the assessment. The assessment order was set aside to allow for cross-examination and adherence to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of the statutory period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the lower authorities was bad in law. This was based on the fact that for the preceding assessment year (2018-19), the AO had dropped proceedings on similar facts and evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the genuineness of loans from the same party was accepted in a prior assessment year, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the current year's loans.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the transactions were commercial/current account based and not covered by Section 2(22)(e). It also agreed that the addition under Section 68 was factually incorrect as no fresh loan was taken during the year.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C, which is a mandatory procedural requirement for eligible assessees, rendered the final assessment order void. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that this procedural lapse was not curable under Section 292B.
The Tribunal held that the completion of assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without communicating the reasons for reopening, when specifically requested, is unsustainable. The addition under Section 68 was also found to be invalid as the assessee discharged its initial burden and the Assessing Officer failed to disprove the transaction.
The Tribunal held that a brought-forward loan from a previous year cannot be treated as a cash credit in the current assessment year. It also held that estimated disallowance of expenses without rejecting the assessee's books of account is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the appeal had been filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, but inadvertently, Section 143(1) was mentioned in Form No. 35. The Tribunal noted that all other details, including the statement of facts and grounds of appeal, clearly indicated that the appeal was against the final assessment order. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had attempted to clarify this issue when notices were received, but the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal in limine. Considering these facts and the submissions, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to admit the appeal, adjudicate all grounds on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not contributed any amount towards the purchase consideration and the entire amount was paid by her husband, the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not be sustained in the hands of the assessee. The evidence showed the husband was the sole contributor.