Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, which is a prerequisite for a valid assessment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal found that the reopening under Section 147 was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked concrete evidence. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the documents and arguments presented.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the exact default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice, thereby frustrating the assessee's right to a proper explanation. Consequently, the penalty was vacated.
The tribunal held that since the assessee was granted fresh registration under Section 12A and 80G in a later year, indicating its activities were considered genuine, the earlier cancellation of registration and approval was not sustainable. The tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).
The tribunal held that since the assessee was granted fresh registration under Section 12A and 80G in a later year, indicating its activities were considered genuine, the earlier cancellation of registration and approval was not sustainable. The tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal, considering the genuine reasons for non-compliance cited by the assessee, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment in the interest of natural justice. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and compliant, and the AO was asked to provide a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additions were made on suspicion without sufficient contrary material. The assessee had sufficient opening cash balance and the books of accounts were accepted, making the additions unjust.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if there is no exempt income. The disallowance for street light charges was upheld due to lack of evidence, but the payment to the Sponge Iron Manufacturing Association was allowed as a business expenditure. The general disallowance was deleted as it was ad-hoc.
The Tribunal held that the employee's share of PF contribution deposited within the extended grace period under the EPF Act was not liable for disallowance. However, amounts deposited beyond the due date were rightly added back. The ad-hoc disallowance for business promotion expenses was vacated due to lack of specific reasons from the AO.