Loading ITAT cases…
106 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation with supporting evidence, including an affidavit and valuation report. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as it was not a case of lack of inquiry but at most inadequate inquiry.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a final opportunity to present their case on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing documentary evidence for the purchases. The AO's allegation of bogus purchases was based on surmises and conjectures without supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond 3 years from the end of the assessment year, the approval should have been obtained from a higher authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval obtained from the Pr. CIT was invalid, vitiating the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond four years requires the AO to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Since this was not done, the reassessment order was deemed invalid, bad in law, and void ab initio, and thus quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The claim of late receipt of the order was found to be factually incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made specific enquiries regarding the brought forward losses and taken a plausible view. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had inadvertently failed to adjudicate all grounds of appeal, which is mandatory. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication of all grounds.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible time limit as per Section 149(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the non-supply of relevant documents and materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer for forming the 'reasons to believe' vitiates the reassessment proceedings. This failure violates the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond 3 years from the end of the assessment year, the approval should have been obtained from a higher authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. As the approval was not obtained from the competent authority, the notice is invalid, and the reassessment proceedings are vitiated.
The Tribunal held that failure to share crucial information and documents with the assessee before passing the reassessment order violates the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the reassessment order is deemed arbitrary, bad in law, and unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that changing the charging section without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee by sending notices to an incorrect email address. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law and unsustainable because the Revenue did not share relevant information and documents with the assessee, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify whether a notice under Section 148 was issued and to pass an order in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the relevant information used against the assessee was not shared, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the interest of substantive justice and the lack of proper representation before the lower appellate authority, the matters were remanded back.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without discussing the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to file all necessary details before the CIT(A), who was to provide a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for additions, alterations, and improvements to make a property habitable are includible in the 'cost of new asset' under Section 54F. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in Rahana Siraj v. CIT.
The Tribunal held that land used for roads and gardens, being unsaleable, should not be included in closing stock, directing deletion of the addition. However, it confirmed the addition for agricultural income due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the interest of substantive justice and the lack of proper representation before the lower appellate authority, the matters were remanded back.
The Tribunal held that as per the proviso to Section 68, if the person in whose name the credit appears offers an explanation, it is deemed to be explained by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted documents to substantiate the investor company's identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had wrongly invoked Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits, as the facts pertained to cash withdrawals and deposits, which should have been considered under Section 69A. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the incorrect charging section.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to place on record evidence of issuing a show cause notice as per CBDT guidelines. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after complying with natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled its onus by providing invoices, lorry receipts, bank statements, and ledger accounts to prove sales to Fast Deal Corporation, Delhi. The Tribunal also found that the investigation report lacked specific information linking the assessee to the alleged bogus transactions and that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued without tangible material.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and the assessment order was passed ex-parte. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of Section 54F exemption for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee an opportunity to provide necessary documents. Similarly, the issue of cash deposits was remanded for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following precedents, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, following precedent, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, following previous precedents, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following precedents, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for the loans from Smt. Nirmala Lodha and Smt. Rashmi Lodha, the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were established. For the Rs. 1,80,000 transaction, it was considered rent paid, which was offered for taxation by the recipient, thus no prejudice to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the land sold was a capital asset as it was situated within the Municipal Corporation. It further held that the deduction under Section 54F should not be denied on hyper-technical grounds, especially when the source of capital gain and investment in the new asset are not disputed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the lower appellate authority should have considered the additional evidence produced by the assessee and obtained a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply and represent the case.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A can only be invoked if the assessee has earned income which does not form part of the total income. Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following previous precedents, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for treating the transactions as hawala business and taxing only commission was not convincing. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for treating the transactions as hawala business and taxing only commission was not convincing. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the three-year period and approved by the Principal Commissioner instead of the higher authorities specified in Section 151(ii). Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was bad in law because crucial information from the Investigation Wing, used against the assessee, was not shared. This violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred and void ab initio, as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and the notice was issued after the expiry of the time limit as per the prevailing CBDT instructions and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the quantum of agricultural income. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case by filing requisite details. The assessee was directed to submit details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit requisite details. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The matter was remanded back for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.