ITAT Nagpur Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal found that the merits of the case were not adjudicated and decided to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the investments in shares and opening capital to a significant extent were properly explained by the evidence. However, the assessee conceded that relief was not available for Rs. 88,423/- due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, dismissed the appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, dismissed the appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, dismissed the appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, dismissed the appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, dismissed the appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that only the peak credit of cash deposits and withdrawals should be taxed, not all deposits. The addition for the plot purchase was upheld as the peak credit presumption means withdrawn amounts are presumed to be redeposited.

The Tribunal found a mismatch between the assessee's contentions and the supporting documents regarding the nature of the Rs. 4.76 crore receipt. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh examination of the receipt's precise nature.

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to be valid, the notice must be properly served on the assessee. If the notice is served on an unauthorized person, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-compliance.

The Tribunal is considering an appeal against the confirmation of addition of long-term capital gain on the sale of land. The Assessing Officer questioned the assessee's valuation of the property as on 01.04.1981.

The Tribunal is considering an appeal against the confirmation of addition of long-term capital gain on the sale of land. The Assessing Officer questioned the assessee's valuation of the property as on 01.04.1981.

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to be valid, the notice must be properly served on the assessee. If the notice is served on an unauthorized person, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to be valid, the notice must be properly served on the assessee. If the notice is served on an unauthorized person, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to be valid, the notice must be properly served on the assessee. If the notice is served on an unauthorized person, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-compliance.

The Tribunal is considering an appeal against the confirmation of addition of long-term capital gain on the sale of land. The Assessing Officer questioned the assessee's valuation of the property as on 01.04.1981.

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to be valid, the notice must be properly served on the assessee. Serving the notice on an unauthorized person, who is neither a Director nor a Principal Officer, renders the notice invalid and thus the penalty cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to be valid, the notice must be properly served on the assessee. If the notice is served on an unauthorized person, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that for a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) to be valid, the notice must be properly served on the assessee. If the notice is served on an unauthorized person, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-compliance.