Loading ITAT cases…
177 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the subsequent assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 were invalid because the PCIT's revision directions themselves had been reversed in a prior appeal by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide corroborative evidence for the cash deposits, which were claimed to be from cash sales. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the NFAC to allow the assessee one more opportunity to furnish supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the situs of the assessing officer is the sole determinant of the appellate forum's jurisdiction, irrespective of administrative orders. Therefore, the Pune Bench lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice granting only seven days to cure defects denied a real opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The reasons for non-compliance were considered sufficient.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a credit co-operative society on its investments with other co-operative societies and banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it arises in the course of its principal business. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had restricted powers under Section 251(1)(a) and could not have remanded the issue.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of representation and failure to produce supporting documents before the lower authorities. It decided to grant one more opportunity for effective representation and compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer correctly treated the unexplained cash credit as income.
The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) did not provide a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the time granted for compliance was insufficient. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that for capital gains to be taxable, the asset must have been acquired by incurring a cost. Since the Inam land was inherited and had no cost of acquisition, no capital gains tax liability arises.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed with a significant delay and the reasons provided for the delay, particularly the false affidavit regarding the assessee's presence in India, were not sufficient cause. The Tribunal imposed exemplary costs on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC did not provide a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as the notices were issued with very short compliance periods. Furthermore, the NFAC failed to adjudicate the dispute on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to produce documents to substantiate her claims, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, the order must still comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. The CIT(A)'s order was silent on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC was irregular as the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to bonafide confusion. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity by remitting the file back to the NFAC for de-novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appellate Authority (NFAC) denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present his case by providing insufficient time for compliance. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appellate Authority (NFAC) denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present his case by providing insufficient time for compliance. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a credit co-operative society from its investments with other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act. The surplus fund theory is not applicable to credit co-operative societies in this context.
The Tribunal held that since the primary reason for reopening (cash deposits) was not acted upon, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions on other grounds. The reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the non-compliance before the NFAC, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of an appellate forum is determined by the situs of the assessing officer, as per the ITAT Standing Order and Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the Pune Bench lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of an appellate forum is determined by the situs of the assessing officer, as per the ITAT Standing Order and Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the Pune Bench lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the non-compliance before the NFAC, finding it to be accidental and undeliberate. The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal violated the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appellate Authority (NFAC) denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present his case by providing insufficient time for compliance. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal in limine was due to confusion arising from the transition to the faceless regime and the failure of both parties to properly transfer the case records. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to produce documents to substantiate her claims, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the terms and conditions of each project. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.