Loading ITAT cases…
106 orders · Page 2 of 3
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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be prejudiced by the internal functioning of the department regarding the allotment of cases. The appeal was set aside, and the matter was restored to the First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication on merits regarding the claim under Section 115BAB.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to present their case. The assessee is directed to appear and substantiate their claims without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to establish a direct nexus between the assessee and any illegal benefit derived from price rigging. The assessee had provided all necessary documentation for the transactions, which were conducted through the stock exchange.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is directed to submit details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication de novo. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that in cases of ex-parte orders by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication on merits, following principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unfounded and arbitrary, as the revenue failed to prove that the seized cash was from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence based on the principle of substantive justice and previous High Court and Tribunal rulings. The matter was restored to the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) for verification of the evidence and a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to comply and present their case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to 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. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case on merits.
The tribunal held that an order cannot be passed against a deceased person and that proceedings must continue against the legal representative. The impugned order was set aside as a nullity due to being passed in the name of the deceased.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked reasoning and verification, failing to comply with the principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be prejudiced by the internal functioning of the department regarding the allotment of appeals. The matter of entitlement to the 15% tax rate under Section 115BAB needs to be adjudicated on merits by the First Appellate Authority.
The Tribunal held that renewal of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) is only possible if the assessee possesses a prior registration. Since the assessee lacked any such registration, the renewal application was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that actual conduct, not just a single bylaw, should determine the society's nature. It was held that the assessee deserved a reasonable opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on incorrect facts regarding the assessee's existence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not properly considered the amended by-laws and the student enrollment data. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found the impugned order to be not well-reasoned and set it aside. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine transactions through the stock exchange, demat account, and banking channels. The revenue failed to establish any direct nexus between the assessee and share rigging activities or any conscious involvement in obtaining bogus long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the amount found had a nexus to the business activity, which includes past savings. Since the revenue did not doubt the source or bring on record any other undisclosed source, the amount was considered to pertain to a disclosed source.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was misplaced. The source of income of the lender from professional fees was not disputed, and she had disclosed substantial income in her returns. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision with similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the ITO without proper jurisdiction and without issuing a notice under Section 148 was arbitrary, void ab initio, and bad in law. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the 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 held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order as required by Section 144C(1) is a mandatory procedural requirement and a jurisdictional lapse, not a curable defect. This vitiates the entire assessment proceeding.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the applicability of penalty under Section 271B depends on the interpretation of Section 44AB, which requires adjudication of the quantum appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was given a final opportunity to comply and represent the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit with detailed reasoning, even in cases of non-prosecution, and cannot dismiss them solely on that ground. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, primarily on the grounds of low tax effect, which was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was non-maintainable due to this low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to bring any direct nexus of the assessee in share rigging activities or conscious involvement in obtaining bogus long-term capital gains. The assessee was considered an unsuspecting investor.
The tribunal held that the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) before completing the reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B renders the assessment invalid and bad in law. This is a mandatory procedural requirement.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer without valid inherent jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was quashed.
The Tribunal considered the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the loan, past savings, and declared agricultural income. The AO's addition was based on unexplained investment, and the assessee provided documentary evidence for a portion of the funds.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the penalty appeals depends on the outcome of the pending quantum appeals before the High Court. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 69A were unfounded and arbitrary. Following previous judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the penalty appeals depends on the outcome of the pending quantum appeals before the High Court. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the penalty appeals depends on the outcome of the pending quantum appeals before the High Court. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal 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 issue of bogus purchases and then pass necessary orders.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting that they were significant for determining taxability and were not in the assessee's possession earlier. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after verification of these documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The assessee had provided all relevant documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the penalty appeals depends on the outcome of the pending quantum appeals before the High Court. Therefore, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the additional adjustment made in the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 75,88,188/-, was invalid. The Tribunal followed the binding judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Rallies India Limited Vs. Central Processing Centre & Ors. and Bax India Ventures Private Limited Vs. Central Processing Centre. These judgments established that Section 143(1) and its provisos mandate that an assessee must be given an intimation of proposed adjustments and their response must be considered before any adjustment is made. The Tribunal found that in this case, the final addition was substantially higher than what was initially proposed in the show cause notice, and no opportunity of hearing was granted for this increased amount. This constituted a clear breach of the principles of natural justice and contravened the jurisdictional requirements of Section 143(1). Consequently, the additional adjustment of Rs. 75,88,188/- was deleted, and the order of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) was set aside on this ground alone.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters back for de novo adjudication, emphasizing that this was a final opportunity for the assessee to comply and present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed employee's contribution to ESI/PF made by the AO under Section 143(1) was not permissible. The adjustment was vitiated in law as the issue was debatable and required detailed examination.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of bogus purchases by rice millers is sub-judice before the High Court. Following previous consistent decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter back.
The ITAT held that principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.