Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 1 of 2
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a de novo order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The assessee is free to argue on merits and request condonation of delay before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of a higher turnover based solely on bank credits needed further inquiry. The matter was restored to the AO to determine if the assessee's actual turnover exceeded the threshold for section 44AD, which would then make section 44AB applicable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed a large number of documents before the CIT(A) which were crucial for determining the creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness of transactions. The AO had not properly examined these documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present its case on merit. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the NFAC's directions to avoid an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to comply with future directions, failing which the NFAC can pass an order based on available material.
The Tribunal held that simply making an incorrect claim in the return does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars if all relevant details are provided. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent their case on merits. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the evidence placed by the assessee required verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after verifying the evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal held that the protective addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as the assessee was not maintaining books of account and the transactions were clearly linked to accommodation entries. The enhancement of commission income by the CIT(A) was quashed due to lack of evidence and procedural violation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) correctly considered the available evidence and legal precedents in deleting the additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the case and without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's application. However, due to the consistent non-appearance of the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution due to the assessee's failure to attend hearings and prosecute the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling the order upon demonstrating sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the appeal on merits, especially given the circumstances of the delay. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The assessee, upon reconsideration, decided not to press the appeal and requested to withdraw it. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that at the time of hearing, there was no representation from the assessee's side. The Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the contents of the paper book filed by the assessee required verification by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Departmental Representative requested that the issue be restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after due verification. The Tribunal accepted this submission. Therefore, the impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues in dispute were restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a de novo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal were treated as disposed of in accordance with these directions. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer or the contentions of the assessee.
The ITAT found that the FAA had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits and without passing a speaking order. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the FAA's order and restored the matter to the FAA for a de novo decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that jurisdiction is a foundational requirement for assessment validity and that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the assessee's jurisdictional ground. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Authority for proper adjudication and to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that there was no representation from the assessee before the First Appellate Authority, leading to an ex parte order. Considering the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal restored the grounds to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after verification.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not commenced construction on the plot before the Supreme Court ban, and the ban occurred after the stipulated period for construction completion under Section 54. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that to subserve the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to represent their case, especially given the COVID-19 circumstances. The impugned orders were set aside and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without affording proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be granted an opportunity to explain the delay and present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unsecured loans was baseless as the CIT(A) had verified the assessee's accounts and found the AO's premise to be incorrect. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest expenses, agreeing that the assessee was in the business of money lending.
The ITAT restored the assessment to the AO for de novo consideration, finding that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding compensation for land acquisition. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside pending fresh assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues of additions to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The assessee is to be provided a reasonable opportunity during the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence. Considering the interests of substantial justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal restored the case to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case and evidence for the cash deposits. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit and based on directions that were subsequently expunged. Consequently, the reassessment order was also void.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 regarding the penalty paid to NHAI, as the AO had examined the issue. However, regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal found the PCIT was justified in directing further inquiries as the AO had not examined the creditworthiness of the lenders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking and cryptic order, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal also noted the AO's failure to properly identify payees, verify payments, and examine TDS returns.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) as per law. Additionally, the assessee was to be granted the refund along with applicable interest if eligible.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit and based on directions that were subsequently expunged. Consequently, the reassessment order was also void.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit and based on directions that were subsequently expunged. Consequently, the reassessment order was also void.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer received a reasonable opportunity during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the additions were prima facie based on incorrect information and perfunctory exercise by the AO, with no reflection of alleged transactions in bank statements. The assessee was also not given adequate opportunities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. This was due to the lack of reasonable opportunity provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer received a reasonable opportunity during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored both issues (agricultural income and business expense disallowance) back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found the assessee's request acceptable and set aside the impugned appellate orders. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after providing reasonable opportunities.
The Tribunal found the assessee's request acceptable and set aside the impugned appellate orders. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after providing reasonable opportunities.
The Tribunal found the assessee's request acceptable and set aside the impugned appellate orders. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after providing reasonable opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders and appellate orders were passed without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessees. The impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officers for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. This was based on the submission that the assessment and appellate orders were passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.