Loading ITAT cases…
141 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the assessee was aware of the demand in 2017 based on their own rectification letter. The Tribunal also followed a previous decision where appeals against similar orders were dismissed for not being maintainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the ex-parte orders were passed without considering the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to submit the required documents and present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the AO or giving the AO an opportunity to rebut it. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the various incomes earned by the assessee were directly derived from its business activities and were therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Consequently, the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of deduction was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits, as evidenced by bank statements showing a loan withdrawal and subsequent redeposit. The Revenue failed to rebut this explanation.
The Tribunal held that since it was an admitted fact that the cash belonged to 'M/s. Best Collection' and not the assessee, who was merely an employee, the addition could not be made in the assessee's hands. The primary condition for Section 69A is that the assessee must be the owner of the money.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E), directing that the assessee be given one more opportunity to submit the required details and substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee mistakenly filed the return under the non-audit category, the audit report in Form 10B was filed before the due date. Therefore, the denial of exemption was not justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the assessee was aware of the demand in 2017, as evidenced by a rectification letter filed. The Tribunal also followed a previous decision where appeals were dismissed for not filing the appealable order under Section 200A.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries into the disclosed additional income and its utilization. The PCIT's order to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, acknowledging the assessee's agriculturist status and lack of awareness. The case was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication to ensure justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar HUF, which held that CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, due to low tax effect, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) and simply dismissed it for want of prosecution. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the assessee was aware of the demand in 2017, as evidenced by a rectification letter filed. The Tribunal also followed a previous decision where appeals were dismissed for not filing the appealable order under Section 200A.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to consider the assessee's affidavit and bills, and the information relied upon from the fruit merchant lacked evidentiary value as it was unsigned and potentially from a different entity. The addition was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be due to genuine reasons. It then set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matters to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be due to genuine reasons. It then set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matters to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to submit the required documents and present its case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the assessee was aware of the demand in 2017 and that the appeals were not maintainable due to the absence of the appealable order under Section 200A.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide the copy of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Assessment Order was set aside for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient details to the CIT(A)/NFAC despite opportunities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal upheld the order under Section 263, finding that the Assessing Officer had not made necessary inquiries regarding the claimed deductions. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly verified the nature of the deposits and whether the assessee was authorized to collect demonetized currency. Therefore, the issue was set aside for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks and scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The issue regarding interest from Axis Bank was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on a technical ground, which was beyond the assessee's control and not a curable defect, was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on a technical ground, which was beyond the assessee's control and not a curable defect, was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have decided the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee, by passing a speaking order. The ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside issues without obtaining a remand report from the AO, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, a primary cooperative society selling milk to a federal cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b). The Tribunal noted that similar deductions were allowed in previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as multiple hearings were scheduled within a very short span of time. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income from bank deposits. This decision was based on the Tribunal's own previous orders in the assessee's case and the principle of consistency with past assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on a technical ground, which was beyond the assessee's control and not a curable defect, was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from a nationalized bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision followed favorable precedents from non-jurisdictional High Courts and the Pune ITAT bench.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one last opportunity to present its case. This was based on the assessee's submission that it did not receive notices due to an outdated email address.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside issues without obtaining a remand report from the AO, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the death of their tax consultant was beyond their control. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in adjudicating the appeals. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeals solely based on a remand report and the ratio of 'PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.', concluding there was an absence of incriminating documents. However, the Tribunal found that the remand reports, when read in conjunction with the seized material, statements, and assessment orders, clearly indicated the presence of incriminating material. The CIT(A) had misread the remand reports, which actually confirmed the existence of incriminating material with adverse findings against the assessees. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by not stating the point of determination, decision, and clear reasons. Citing precedents like 'Pankaj Vs Ne-AC' (Bom) and 'Chennai Silk VS Asstt Commissioner (ST-FAC)' (Mad), the Tribunal held that orders passed without considering material on record are bad in law. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law, with directions to grant virtual hearings and pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in adjudicating the appeals. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeals solely based on a remand report and the ratio of 'PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.', concluding there was an absence of incriminating documents. However, the Tribunal found that the remand reports, when read in conjunction with the seized material, statements, and assessment orders, clearly indicated the presence of incriminating material. The CIT(A) had misread the remand reports, which actually confirmed the existence of incriminating material with adverse findings against the assessees. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by not stating the point of determination, decision, and clear reasons. Citing precedents like 'Pankaj Vs Ne-AC' (Bom) and 'Chennai Silk VS Asstt Commissioner (ST-FAC)' (Mad), the Tribunal held that orders passed without considering material on record are bad in law. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law, with directions to grant virtual hearings and pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order liable to be quashed. Consequently, the grounds challenging the additions on merit became academic.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the surrender of income was not voluntary but made under compulsion due to the search and doubt over the genuineness of expenditure. The presumption of concealment under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) is attracted when income assessed is higher than returned income, irrespective of voluntary surrender.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.