Loading ITAT cases…
102 tribunal orders from the Patna bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 102 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 was ex-parte and the issues were common to the revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the Tribunal remitted all issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 was ex-parte and the issues were common to the revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the Tribunal remitted all issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had failed to properly examine the issue of deductibility of loss of assets against gross revenue receipts.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal at the threshold, finding that the information received from the Land Acquisition Officer did not qualify as information from a law enforcement agency as per the CBDT circular exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper enquiry regarding unexplained credits in the bank account and a debit in the P&L account. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter had become infructuous. The addition made in the assessment order had been deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that 90% of net interest should be reduced for Section 80HHC deduction, following Supreme Court judgments. It also ruled that interest under Section 234B should be charged as per Section 234B(4) and not 234B(3), as the assessment was not a re-assessment under Section 147/153A.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter had become infructuous. The additions made in the assessment order were deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the proceedings were initiated. This lack of specificity indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of provision for bad debts as the assessee subsequently provided necessary details and the AO found no adverse findings. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the ad-hoc disallowance on expenses, finding the reasoning for the restriction justified.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of jurisdiction without proper orders u/s 127 is invalid. The assessment framed by a non-jurisdictional officer without issuing the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law.
The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, ensuring adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, ensuring adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, ensuring adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The evidence showed no actual difference, and the AO's order was correct.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's returns were filed within the extended due date applicable to assessees with specified domestic transactions. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's returns were filed within the extended due date applicable to assessees with specified domestic transactions. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars regarding enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal, having a tax effect below the specified limit, was to be treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and lacked detailed discussion on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and filing necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and lacked detailed discussion on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and filing necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and lacked detailed discussion on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and filing necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and lacked detailed discussion on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and filing necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and lacked detailed discussion on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and filing necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were ex-parte and lacked detailed discussion on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and filing necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 were not mistakes apparent from the record, as they required a long-drawn process of reasoning. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting these adjustments was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the addition for advances from customers as the AO's remand report confirmed their genuineness. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's challenge to the reduced disallowance of miscellaneous expenses. However, issues regarding capital introduced and disallowances under Section 43B were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for departmental appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, having a tax effect below the prescribed limit, is dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made for disallowed expenses and sundry creditors. The income was to be recomputed by applying 8% on gross contract receipts, with a reduction for income already offered.
The Tribunal reduced the net profit rate to 6% on gross receipts, considering it reasonable for civil contract business. It also deleted the addition of capital introduced by partners, finding the AO's rejection unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5, confirming the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal found no merit in the contention that the Section 154 proceedings were void or that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte without proper opportunity. However, in the interest of justice, the issue regarding the validity of the remuneration and bonus claim under Section 40(b)(v) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the Department had issued Form No. 5, confirming the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 and the Competent Authority had issued Form 5. Consequently, the Bench allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Act, 2020 and the Competent Authority had issued Form 5. Consequently, the Bench allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were not speaking orders as they summarily dismissed all grounds without proper adjudication. The Tribunal agreed that the applicability of Section 43D and RBI guidelines was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were not speaking orders as they summarily dismissed all grounds without proper adjudication. The Tribunal agreed that the applicability of Section 43D and RBI guidelines was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly addressed the grounds related to the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and the disallowance of freight and carriage expenses. No new material was presented to contradict the findings.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities as the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for the unexplained cash deposits. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.