Loading ITAT cases…
715 orders · Page 6 of 15
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report findings while passing the impugned order. The order suffered from a lack of proper appreciation of the material on record, including the AO's remand findings.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and uncorroborated excel sheet data, without any independent evidence linking the assessee, are unsustainable. The principles of natural justice were violated as the adverse material was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that acquiring rights in a property through an allotment letter and making the investment within the stipulated period is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 54, even if possession is delayed due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and uncorroborated excel sheet data, without any independent evidence linking the assessee, are unsustainable. The principles of natural justice were violated as the adverse material was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the remand report and the evidence submitted during appeal. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the majority of purchases were accepted as genuine and export sales were not doubted. It restricted the addition to the differential profit margin, directing the assessee to provide computation of gross profit margin for similar goods.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in treating the purchases as bogus due to the assessee's failure to prove their genuineness. The assessee's books of accounts were deemed unreliable, leading to the addition of unexplained bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case as the defect in the application was not properly brought to its notice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that the property retained its residential character, thus disallowing the Section 54F exemption. However, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the alternative claim for exemption under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case as the defect in the application was not properly brought to its notice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the grievance of the assessee was already resolved by the AO's rectification order. Since the rectification order was not brought to the CIT(A)'s notice, the appellate order became redundant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a small deposit, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the principle of substantial justice. The case was then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum assessment, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside, the penalty order could not survive independently. The penalty is consequential to the assessment, and its foundation ceases to exist when the assessment is restored for fresh determination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a small deposit, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the principle of substantial justice. The case was then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not given any finding on the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of section 115BAA solely on the ground of non-filing of Form 10-IC within the prescribed time, especially when the non-filing was due to technical reasons beyond the assessee's control. Consequently, section 115JB is not applicable, and brought forward losses should be considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a small deposit, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the principle of substantial justice. The case was then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision. This was done to uphold the principles of natural justice, as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the notice.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal as the issue had become infructuous due to the subsequent approval. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal as the issue had become infructuous due to the subsequent approval. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the mere existence of an object clause allowing application of funds outside India does not constitute a 'specified violation' unless income is actually applied outside India in contravention of Section 11. The CIT(E) should not deny registration based on hypothetical apprehensions.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and uncorroborated excel sheet data, without any independent evidence linking the assessee, are unsustainable. The principles of natural justice were violated as the adverse material was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with a cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed within the prescribed time limit under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessment order was subject to appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT. Therefore, the extended period for passing the penalty order was applicable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice and the genuine reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that a fair opportunity be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer's outright rejection nor the CIT(A)'s acceptance of revised estimates was fully justified. The matter was set aside for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be sustained merely on disallowance of depreciation when the ultimate assessed income is Nil and no tax is payable. The disallowance did not result in under-reporting of income in a real and statutory sense.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed within the prescribed time limit under Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessment order was subject to appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT. Therefore, the extended period for passing the penalty order was applicable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity. This was based on the explanation provided and an undertaking by the assessee's counsel to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G is not sustainable merely because the payment was part of CSR expenditure. Section 80G is an independent provision, and there is no general prohibition against claiming deductions for CSR donations.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer's outright rejection nor the CIT(A)'s acceptance of revised estimates was fully justified. The matter was set aside for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the interest under Section 244A should be computed only on the differential portion of the refund granted after the rectification. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the interest after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was time-barred as it was issued beyond the surviving period available to the revenue, as per Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty levied under Section 270A has no foundation and must be deleted. The existence of assessed income is a prerequisite for levying such a penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without deciding the grounds on merits, solely due to non-appearance. The jurisdictional High Court's ruling was cited, stating that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the preceding assessment year was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the present appeal was also set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was inordinate and not supported by sufficient cause. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order of not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was inordinate and not supported by sufficient cause. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order of not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 140A(3) read with Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable in law. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to levy such a penalty after amendments to the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it held that the difference between the DVO's valuation and the agreement value was within the permissible limit of 10%, considering the retrospective application of the enhanced safe harbor limit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for violating the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. The penalties levied were justified as the assessee did not provide cogent evidence to support their claims of bona fides or administrative convenience.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay. The assessee was directed to file an affidavit and appear on fixed dates.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition on account of ad-hoc commission was based on conjecture and lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions, following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition on account of ad-hoc commission was based on conjecture and lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions, following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal, noting the contentious issues and the assessee's non-compliance before the lower appellate authority, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. This was granted as a last opportunity, subject to a deposit.