Loading ITAT cases…
56 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that an ex-parte order was passed without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence (C-forms) without confronting the AO for his response, violating Rule 46A(3). The matter was remanded to the CIT(Appeals) to comply with the rule and conduct factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the non-service of a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer himself admitted in a letter that the notice was not served.
The Tribunal held that non-supply of relevant information and documents used for reopening the assessment violates the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the reassessment order is quashed as it is unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the non-service of a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer himself admitted in a letter that the notice was not served.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not adjudicate the matter according to law by not following Rule 46A(3) and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was negligent and evasive in pursuing the appeal, having failed to respond to multiple notices and opportunities. Allowing another opportunity would set a wrong precedent.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply and represent the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid and void ab initio because it failed to provide the mandatory minimum of seven clear days for the assessee's response. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were rendered null and void.
The Tribunal, following a previous similar order, held that the issue of bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) to await the High Court's decision and then adjudicate afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 9 days. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the AO, violating Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's explanation of being a farmer unaware of digital platforms. The Tribunal then remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that 'stipend' and 'scholarship' serve the same purpose of assisting a student to complete their education. Since the revenue did not establish a distinction to deny exemption, the addition made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal, following previous decisions on similar issues involving rice millers and bogus purchases, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to its file. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to wait for the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the sub-judice issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper reasoning, violating the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) provided reasonable opportunities for hearing and that the assessee's non-compliance, especially within the limited timeframe set by the ITAT, did not warrant a further remand. The addition made by the AO was considered well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal, following previous decisions on similar issues involving rice millers and bogus purchases, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to its file. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to wait for the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the sub-judice issue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide cogent evidence for disallowing expenses claimed by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals)'s findings were upheld, and the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that confirming penalties without verifying settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is incorrect and arbitrary. The penalty cannot stand if the quantum is settled under the scheme, and the assessee's request for withdrawal should have been considered.
The tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(Appeals). The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that confirming penalties without verifying settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is incorrect and arbitrary. The penalty cannot stand if the quantum is settled under the scheme, and the assessee's request for withdrawal should have been considered.
The Tribunal held that in cases of ex-parte orders due to non-compliance, principles of natural justice require remanding the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following precedent, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to appear and present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. This was done to provide a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide specific reasons for sustaining the penalty. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that employee's contributions to PF and ESIC must be deposited within the statutory due dates to be eligible for deduction. Payments made after these dates, even if before the return filing date, are not deductible and are treated as deemed income.
The Tribunal held that due to the nature of the business (trading forest produce in remote areas) and the tribal recipients, cash payments are practically unavoidable. The Assessing Officer did not doubt the books of account or invoke Section 145(3). The addition was therefore considered arbitrary and lacking merit, especially since no independent inquiry was conducted by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases was made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee, who was a partner in the firm that allegedly made the purchases. The Tribunal found no justification for taxing these purchases solely in the hands of the assessee on a protective basis, especially when the firm itself was involved and the assessee became its proprietor only after dissolution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply with hearing notices and represent the case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to comply with hearing notices.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices and present the case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply with hearing notices and represent the case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply with the hearing notices and present the case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply with hearing notices and represent the case on merits.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal solely on limitation without examining the merits. Following a precedent, the tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a final opportunity to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal held that ad-hoc additions cannot be made without rejecting the books of account. Since the AO accepted the books of account and did not invoke Section 145(3), the additions were unjustified and arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that since the audit report was filed within the extended due date granted by the CBDT, there was no non-compliance. The CPC had erred in denying the exemption, and the findings of the First Appellate Authority were also set aside.
The CIT(Appeals) upheld the additions, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of funds and the donor's creditworthiness. The tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 151 by the competent authority was mechanical and based solely on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note without independent reasoning. This vitiates the approval and all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition regarding the purchase of the immovable property was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny. The limited scrutiny was focused on the sale of properties by the assessee, not the purchase. Therefore, the AO's action violated CBDT Circular No. 20/2015.