Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's adjournment requests, leading to an ex-parte order that violated natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(Appeals) was inordinate and not supported by sufficient cause. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) was justified in declining to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the concluded assessment was based on a mere change of opinion and was invalid as it was done beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the first proviso to Section 50C(1) was applicable. This proviso allows for the use of the stamp valuation authority's value on the date of the agreement to sell if it precedes the registration date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as it did not receive government grants during the year. The additional ground regarding Section 12A(2) was also dismissed as the assessment proceedings were not pending when registration under Section 12AA was granted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide the 'reasons to believe' to the assessee, despite a specific request, vitiated the assessment proceedings. This failure deprived the assessee of their statutory right to object to the reopening of the case.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to substantiate how the assessee did not discharge its onus under Section 68 and erred in making adverse conclusions without proper documentation or reasons. The Tribunal followed the ratio of Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for not adhering to the prescribed modes of repayment under Section 269T. Ignorance of the law, especially with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant, was not accepted as a valid excuse.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal against the assessment order was set aside by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty order, which was based on that assessment order, could not stand. Following the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders vs. ACIT, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT rightly invoked Section 263 powers as the Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the assessee's claims. The Pr. CIT acted in accordance with natural justice by setting aside the assessment and allowing the assessee to present its contentions before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present evidence regarding the agricultural use of the land. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for not adhering to the prescribed modes of repayment under Section 269T. Ignorance of the law, especially with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant, was not accepted as a valid excuse.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for not adhering to the prescribed modes of repayment under Section 269T. Ignorance of the law, especially with the assistance of a Chartered Accountant, was not accepted as a valid excuse.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction on profit from paddy procurement business under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be restricted to the extent of profit relatable to marketing agricultural produce of members. The claim for deduction on other income related to recovery from NPA accounts was declined due to lack of specific details.
The Tribunal held that the profit on bogus purchases should be determined by bringing the GP rate of such purchases to the same level as genuine purchases. The matter was restored to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the profit on bogus purchases should be calculated at the same rate as genuine purchases, referencing a High Court judgment. The matter was restored to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction on profit from paddy procurement business under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be restricted to the extent of profit relatable to marketing agricultural produce of members. The claim for deduction on other income related to recovery from NPA accounts was declined due to lack of specific details.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction on profit from paddy procurement business under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be restricted to the extent of profit relatable to marketing agricultural produce of members. The claim for deduction on other income related to recovery from NPA accounts was declined due to lack of specific details.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction on profit from paddy procurement business under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be restricted to the extent of profit relatable to marketing agricultural produce of members. The claim for deduction on other income related to recovery from NPA accounts was declined due to lack of specific details.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction on profit from paddy procurement business under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be restricted to the extent of profit relatable to marketing agricultural produce of members. The claim for deduction on other income related to recovery from NPA accounts was declined due to lack of specific details.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction on profit from paddy procurement business under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be restricted to the extent of profit relatable to marketing agricultural produce of members. The claim for deduction on other income related to recovery from NPA accounts was declined due to lack of specific details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(Appeals) must apply their mind to all issues arising from the impugned order.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as their grievance was resolved after the condonation order. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(Appeals) must apply their mind to all issues arising from the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and that it was obligatory to dispose of the appeal on merits. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction on profit from paddy procurement business under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) should be restricted to the extent of profit relatable to marketing agricultural produce of members. The claim for deduction on other income related to recovery from NPA accounts was declined due to lack of specific details.
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory obligation to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's show cause notice was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This failure deprived the assessee of a proper opportunity to defend himself, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was not justified. It followed previous ITAT rulings which indicated that such disallowances are not permissible under Section 143(1) when payments are made before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings. The AO's assessment order had already incorporated the disallowance, and the case was selected for limited scrutiny on a different issue, making the Pr. CIT's revision beyond his jurisdiction.