Loading ITAT cases…
747 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench in 2024.
Showing 40 of 747 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing natural justice and the fact that the assessee should not suffer due to the latches of their legal advisor. On merits, the Tribunal found that the addition was made without sufficient evidence and set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 were barred by limitation. It also deleted additions made under Section 68 for all the impugned assessment years, finding them to be either unsubstantiated or double additions. Issues related to unabated years were left undecided as the primary assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions made for unabated assessment years, where no incriminating material was found during the search, are not sustainable. It also noted that the assessment orders for certain years were quashed due to lack of proper statutory approval.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 were barred by limitation. It also deleted additions made under Section 68 for all the impugned assessment years, finding them to be either unsubstantiated or double additions. Issues related to unabated years were left undecided as the primary assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions made for unabated assessment years, where no incriminating material was found during the search, are not sustainable. It also noted that the assessment orders for certain years were quashed due to lack of proper statutory approval.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had subsequently obtained approval under section 80G. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vague as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had offered an explanation which was considered bona fide, and the addition was partly restricted due to lack of documentary evidence. The Tribunal found the penalty order to be devoid of satisfaction regarding the applicability of the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeals, in the interest of justice and natural justice, the assessee deserves an opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 were barred by limitation. It also deleted additions made under Section 68 for all the impugned assessment years, finding them to be either unsubstantiated or double additions. Issues related to unabated years were left undecided as the primary assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite granting opportunities. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that additions made for unabated assessment years, where no incriminating material was found during the search, are not sustainable. It also noted that the assessment orders for certain years were quashed due to lack of proper statutory approval.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeals, in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves an opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakh as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that additions made for unabated assessment years, where no incriminating material was found during the search, are not sustainable. It also noted that the assessment orders for certain years were quashed due to lack of proper statutory approval.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the deductions to be bona fide and that all material facts were disclosed. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 270A was deleted.
The ITAT condoned the assessee's delay in filing the appeal before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, noting the pandemic period for the CIT(A) delay. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the case on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed certain required details before the CIT(E). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh adjudication after considering all the details to be filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions made for unabated assessment years, where no incriminating material was found during the search, are not sustainable. It also noted that the assessment orders for certain years were quashed due to lack of proper statutory approval.
The assessee's authorized representative stated that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and requested its withdrawal. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit of ₹60 lakh as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 were barred by limitation. It also deleted additions made under Section 68 for all the impugned assessment years, finding them to be either unsubstantiated or double additions. Issues related to unabated years were left undecided as the primary assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration was not sustainable as the CIT(E) had conducted a superficial inquiry and raised suspicions without proper investigation. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish its entitlement to registration.
The Tribunal held that additions made for unabated assessment years, where no incriminating material was found during the search, are not sustainable. It also noted that the assessment orders for certain years were quashed due to lack of proper statutory approval.
The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 were barred by limitation. It also deleted additions made under Section 68 for all the impugned assessment years, finding them to be either unsubstantiated or double additions. Issues related to unabated years were left undecided as the primary assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS deals with loans or deposits, not the receipt of sale consideration in cash for immovable property. Therefore, the invocation of Section 269SS and the subsequent penalty under Section 271D were incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to file necessary details.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeal due to lack of an affidavit explaining the delay, in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves an opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from its investments in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The facts of the present case were distinguished from the Totgars' judgment.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in enhancing the gross profit ratio without issuing a notice to the assessee. The tribunal found the Assessing Officer's estimation of 8% to be reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite granting opportunities. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment solely for verification is not permissible and the assessment order was fragile. The penalty was deemed unsupportable as the Revenue failed to demonstrate the source of investment or that it emanated from past savings.
The Tribunal found that the AO had mistakenly recorded the invested amount as Rs. 3 lakh when the assessee had actually invested Rs. 1,87,000. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had produced evidence of her savings and source of investment. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3 lakh was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the assessment. The assessee's argument that the firm was dissolved and therefore could not be taxed in its name was not accepted, especially since Service Tax returns were filed in the firm's name.