ITAT Nagpur Judgments — January 2024

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the procedure laid down in Rule 46A by failing to provide the AO an opportunity to rebut additional evidence and record satisfaction for admitting it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was not valid as no incriminating material was found or seized during the search operation. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions and disallowances was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove that the Rs. 2,00,000 was income of the assessee. The addition was deleted, but the assessee was not eligible for the TDS credit as it was admitted to be claimed erroneously.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without proper adjudication and without framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the development agreement was not registered, it did not constitute a transfer of capital asset under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, no capital gains arose in the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, noting that the CIT(A) had partly reversed the assessment findings. The Tribunal also acknowledged that previous coordinate bench orders had rejected the Revenue's stand on similar issues.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The seized material from a different search (M/s. J B Jewels) could only lead to proceedings under Section 153C, not form the basis for revising an assessment framed under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the Section 153A assessment was upheld as incriminating documents were found. However, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed by remanding the issue of cash payment for property back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO and lacked valid reasons, especially since it was done beyond four years without alleging failure to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it because the assessee had a statutory right to appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to approach the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The ITAT held that once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, pending appeals related to claims not included in the resolution plan cannot be continued.

The ITAT held that once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, pending appeals related to claims not included in the resolution plan cannot be continued.

The ITAT held that once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, pending appeals related to claims not included in the resolution plan cannot be continued.

The ITAT held that once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, pending appeals related to claims not included in the resolution plan cannot be continued.