Loading ITAT cases…
38 orders · Page 1 of 1
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 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 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 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.
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 assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request. The Tribunal granted the permission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2015-16) were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, thus quashing these additions. For other grounds, the tribunal partially allowed some claims based on past income declarations and partially confirmed additions.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2015-16) were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, thus quashing these additions. For other grounds, the tribunal partially allowed some claims based on past income declarations and partially confirmed additions.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2015-16) were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, thus quashing these additions. For other grounds, the tribunal partially allowed some claims based on past income declarations and partially confirmed additions.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2015-16) were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, thus quashing these additions. For other grounds, the tribunal partially allowed some claims based on past income declarations and partially confirmed additions.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2015-16) were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, thus quashing these additions. For other grounds, the tribunal partially allowed some claims based on past income declarations and partially confirmed additions.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2015-16) were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, thus quashing these additions. For other grounds, the tribunal partially allowed some claims based on past income declarations and partially confirmed additions.
The Tribunal held that additions made in assessment years where no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were not pending, are not valid. For other issues, the Tribunal considered the assessee's past income declarations and savings to partially allow certain claims.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (2013-14 and 2015-16) were invalid as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. For other years, specific additions were partly allowed or deleted based on the merits of accumulated savings and cash found.
The Tribunal held that additions made for non-abated assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2015-16) were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, thus quashing these additions. For other grounds, the tribunal partially allowed some claims based on past income declarations and partially confirmed additions.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A for non-abated assessments are invalid if not based on incriminating material found during the search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Certain other additions were also partly allowed based on the assessee's past income declarations.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the profit estimation to 7%, finding it reasonable based on judicial precedents. The disallowance on trade payables was also upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.