Loading ITAT cases…
371 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to appear and present their case without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee is not required to deposit advance tax if they have no liability. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and can be considered even if filed belatedly. Therefore, the FTC claim should be allowed after verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. It found that the reassessment was initiated on incorrect facts and constituted a change of opinion, as the issues were already examined during the original scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a copy of the remand report and allow them to file a rejoinder. The CIT(A) is to decide the issue afresh after considering the rejoinder.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were incorrect and flawed. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings, notice, and order were quashed as illegal and invalid.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sourced from the assessee's mobile recharge business, as evidenced by a Gram Panchayat certificate. Therefore, only the net profit from the business should be taxed.
For AY 2018-19, the AO accepted the assessee's revised stock calculation in remand proceedings, rendering the appeal infructuous. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-assess based on the corrected earlier year's stock.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in the deletion of additions. The Tribunal agreed that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, accepted by the AO in the remand report, sufficiently explained the investments and unsecured loans.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. This was done to allow the legal heir to present additional evidence and ensure a fair hearing, considering the original assessee's death.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut it, thereby violating Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on medical emergencies, citing Supreme Court judgments that prioritize substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
For AY 2018-19, the AO accepted the assessee's revised stock calculation in remand proceedings, rendering the appeal infructuous. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-assess based on the corrected earlier year's stock.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal concerning the disallowance of provision of expenses. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside on this specific issue and remitted back for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence in accordance with Rule 46A(1) of the IT Rules.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, as the assessee claimed the cash deposit was from business receipts and only the profit element should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits held with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the ITAT and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits held with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of the ITAT and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause based on Supreme Court precedents. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a charitable trust, is not liable to be taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) under Section 167B of the Act. The income is chargeable to tax at normal rates applicable to Association of Persons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause. It held that the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were invalid due to the assessee's death and lack of proper opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the reasonable cause. It held that the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were invalid due to the assessee's death and lack of proper opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Government Registered Valuer's report, which considered the property's location within a restricted zone and other disadvantages, arrived at a correct Fair Market Value. Since this value was less than the declared sale consideration, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case with requisite details.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under a voluntary retirement scheme, if voluntary and without obligation on the employer's part, is not taxable as profit in lieu of salary. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and restored the matter back to its file. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by applying a liberal and pragmatic approach as per Supreme Court judgments. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the submissions and evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal challenging the quantum additions had already been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the quantum additions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the surviving period prescribed by law. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb of the section under which it was levied, and relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing reasonable cause and a justice-oriented approach. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb of the section under which it was levied, and relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide proper reasoning for estimating the net profit rate, especially when the assessee had already offered a higher profit rate than in preceding years and consistent with presumptive taxation provisions. Therefore, no further addition was justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.