Loading ITAT cases…
590 tribunal orders from the Patna bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 590 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) orders were unsustainable. The CIT(Appeals) misinterpreted Section 249(4), and the Assessing Officer failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the bank account's ownership.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional income was not sustainable and directed its deletion, following a similar decision for a co-owner. It also upheld the deletion of estimated business profits as the AO lacked material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional income was not sustainable and directed its deletion, following a similar decision for a co-owner. It also upheld the deletion of estimated business profits as the AO lacked material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional income was not sustainable and directed its deletion, following a similar decision for a co-owner. It also upheld the deletion of estimated business profits as the AO lacked material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional income was not sustainable and directed its deletion, following a similar decision for a co-owner. It also upheld the deletion of estimated business profits as the AO lacked material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional income was not sustainable and directed its deletion, following a similar decision for a co-owner. It also upheld the deletion of estimated business profits as the AO lacked material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the increase in capital and the assessee's explanation for the sole proprietorship's balance sheet. The Pr. CIT's order was found to be unsustainable as it did not demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous despite the assessee providing detailed explanations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had the power to consider additional evidence under Rule 46A(4) and that the notice issued for written submissions implicitly allowed for supporting material. The Tribunal found no miscarriage of justice in the CIT(Appeals)'s approach.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the additions made under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) solely on the basis of unreliable books, and that specific disallowances were warranted. However, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of Rs. 66,99,500/- made under Section 68, finding it to be an accounting error rather than an unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to pinpoint the error in the AO's assessment or demonstrate how the contractual receipt led to escapement of income. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was not sustainable as it did not establish the assessment order as erroneous.
The Tribunal held that if income is offered under Section 44AD and the AO does not dispute the applicability of this section, then the 8% estimation covers all expenses, and further disallowances or penalty for under-reporting are not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to make adequate inquiry regarding the cash payments and the applicability of Rule 6DD. Therefore, the Commissioner rightly exercised his power under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of labour expenditure based on industrial norms without specific defects was arbitrary. It also found the addition on partner's capital contribution and notional interest on advances to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 154 was unsustainable because the issues raised were debatable and required detailed inquiry, not just obvious mistakes. Furthermore, there was no proof of proper service of the notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the CIT(A) erred in interpreting Section 43CA by requiring full payment at the time of agreement. The matter concerning four sale deeds was remanded to the AO to determine stamp duty valuation on the date of agreement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, violating mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, violating mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, violating mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, violating mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, violating mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing, violating mandatory provisions and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are only permissible if incriminating material is unearthed during the search. Since no incriminating material was found directly related to the assessee and the search was not conducted at the assessee's premises, the assessment orders under Section 153A were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are only permissible if incriminating material is unearthed during the search. Since no incriminating material was found directly related to the assessee and the search was not conducted at the assessee's premises, the assessment orders under Section 153A were not sustainable.
The tribunal held that the AO had conducted a reasonable enquiry and taken a plausible view based on the evidence. The Pr. CIT's revisionary order was not justified as the AO's decision was not erroneous or unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that the current appeal against the denovo assessment order is not maintainable before it. The assessee should have first appealed to the CIT(A). The order passed by the CIT under section 263 could have been challenged independently.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) and set aside the orders. The appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute with the Department under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the taxes. Therefore, the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
The Tribunal held that if the payee (Chief Minister Relief Fund) has included the interest income in its taxable return and paid taxes thereon, the payer (assessee bank) would not be deemed in default under Section 201. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that if the payee (Chief Minister Relief Fund) has included the interest income in its taxable return and paid taxes thereon, the payer (assessee bank) would not be deemed in default under Section 201. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.