Loading ITAT cases…
61 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA was wrongly levied as the conditions precedent for its invocation, specifically the recording of a statement under section 132(4) of the Act, were not met. The AO had not satisfied the requirements of the section before levying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA was wrongly levied as the conditions precedent for its invocation, specifically the recording of a statement under section 132(4) of the Act, were not met. The AO had not satisfied the requirements of the section before levying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA was wrongly levied as the conditions precedent for its invocation, specifically the recording of a statement under section 132(4) of the Act, were not met. The AO had not satisfied the requirements of the section before levying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA was wrongly levied as the conditions precedent for its invocation, specifically the recording of a statement under section 132(4) of the Act, were not met. The AO had not satisfied the requirements of the section before levying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA was wrongly levied as the conditions precedent for its invocation, specifically the recording of a statement under section 132(4) of the Act, were not met. The AO had not satisfied the requirements of the section before levying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA was wrongly levied as the conditions precedent for its invocation, specifically the recording of a statement under section 132(4) of the Act, were not met. The AO had not satisfied the requirements of the section before levying the penalty.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order, citing the principle of natural justice and the trustee's health issues. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, which directs subordinate authorities not to challenge orders of the CIT(Appeals) before the Tribunal if the tax effect is below Rs. 60,00,000/-, unless specific exceptions apply.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) was not justified because the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the consultant's failure to communicate the notices. The penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to the denial of the Foreign Tax Credit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The ITAT also found that the CIT(Appeals) had erroneously dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed against a dead person and were therefore void ab initio. Consequently, both orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities. For the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present all material facts to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the failure to fill in the registration details was a technical defect. Since the CIT(A) had provided an opportunity to file a rectification return, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity to present all relevant papers.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment to Section 140A(3) effective from April 1, 1989, penalty is not imposable for non-payment of self-assessed tax, as this default is compensated by interest. The penalty levied was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals as redundant. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders passed on 31.03.2022 as invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals as redundant. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders passed on 31.03.2022 as invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals as redundant. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders passed on 31.03.2022 as invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the procedure under Section 250(6) by not adjudicating the appeal on merit. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merit after granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution without stating points of dispute and recording reasons. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. The assessee's legal heir was granted an opportunity for natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the order challenged by the assessee was not an order passed under Section 154, but rather an information letter regarding the dismissal of an earlier rectification application. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging the reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to Covid-19 restrictions. The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish replies and evidence.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's habitual non-compliance and lack of representation, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to issue a fresh notice providing a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of substantive justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's habitual non-compliance with notices and lack of proper representation even before the Tribunal. However, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD(1) and did not fall under Section 44AD(5), they were not required to maintain regular books of account. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD(1) and did not fall under Section 44AD(5), they were not required to maintain regular books of account. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD(1) and did not fall under Section 44AD(5), they were not required to maintain regular books of account. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD(1) and did not fall under Section 44AD(5), they were not required to maintain regular books of account. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD(1) and did not fall under Section 44AD(5), they were not required to maintain regular books of account. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons reasonable. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD(1) and did not fall under Section 44AD(5), they were not required to maintain regular books of account. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a speaking order and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, despite the assessee's claimed difficulties in appearing.
The CIT(Appeals) found it impossible to determine the true income from the books and estimated the profit at 6% of the total turnover, citing a High Court precedent. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding it a plausible approach.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It reasoned that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, obtained necessary approvals, and taken a legally permissible view, making the assessment orders neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It reasoned that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, obtained necessary approvals, and taken a legally permissible view, making the assessment orders neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It reasoned that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, obtained necessary approvals, and taken a legally permissible view, making the assessment orders neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. It found that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and adopted a legally permissible view, and that the Pr. CIT had not conducted independent enquiries before assuming jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law. This was primarily because the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, obtained necessary approvals under Section 153D, and taken a legally permissible view. The Pr. CIT had not conducted independent inquiries before assuming jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. The delay of 62 days, attributed to illness and the COVID-19 pandemic, was condoned.