Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 2 of 2
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 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 restored the case to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present evidence for the claimed deductions and exemption. The assessee was cautioned to comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the CIT(A) acted appropriately by admitting additional evidence and adjudicating the appeal when the AO failed to respond to opportunities for a remand report. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the cited Delhi High Court judgment.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some evidence, it was insufficient to conclusively prove the source of the entire cash deposit. However, the Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer accepted a portion of the assessee's savings without direct evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of the addition to the Assessing Officer's file. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's explanation summarily without providing an opportunity to submit further evidence. The Tribunal held that the addition was made without justifiable reasons and was unjust and erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT notification enhancing the exemption limit for leave encashment to Rs. 25,00,000/- is applicable retrospectively and extends to non-government employees. Therefore, the assessee's claim is allowed.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the material on record was insufficient for a final decision. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was due to the assessee not being provided with reasonable opportunities to present their case and rebut the DVO's report.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration if sufficient cause for delay is shown.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was made under Section 115JB and there was no tax evasion under normal provisions, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable. The penalty was deleted following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if sufficient cause for the delay could be shown.
The ITAT found that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during the assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A and Rule 8D are applicable even if investments are made from own funds, as common infrastructure and manpower are used. However, the disallowance was to be computed only with reference to investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the failure to deposit the sale consideration in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme is a procedural lapse and does not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 54F if the basic condition of investing in a new residential house within the prescribed period is met. The Tribunal also found that the new property was predominantly residential, with the shop area being insignificant.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the ex-parte nature of the previous orders and the lack of reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of limitation. The assessee had not submitted any application for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search that belonged to or related to the assessee for the assessment years in question. The Satisfaction Note did not mention any seized documents pertaining to the assessee.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn and consequently became infructuous.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn and consequently became infructuous.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance at all stages of the assessment and appellate proceedings. However, considering the assessee's claim of repeat entries and no cash deposit, and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was cautioned about future compliance.