Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were vague, factually incorrect, and lacked a live link to the formation of belief. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a previous decision in a related case where similar delays were condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and mistakes by the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19.06.2019 clarifies that set-off of losses against income determined under Section 115BBE is allowable till Assessment Year 2016-17. Therefore, the AO should allow the set-off of losses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to the Assessing Officer. However, both parties agreed to an estimated addition. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an estimated addition of 30% of Rs. 11,00,000/-, amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/-.
The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's brother's case, which deleted similar additions. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the prior ruling, especially as the revenue failed to present contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return under Section 148, which replaced the original return, and paid the tax voluntarily, there was no under-reporting or mis-reporting of income. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file its return within the prescribed time. However, it was unclear if an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) was filed. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The assessee expressed its intention not to pursue the current appeal before the ITAT and filed an application for withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, dismissing it solely on the ground of delay. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an application after only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate its claim for approval under Section 80G. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was justified due to the Assessing Officer's lack of adequate enquiry into the source of substantial cash deposits. The assessment order was therefore erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(E)'s file, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and substantiate its claims, citing principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly examine the assessee's contention regarding the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of all factual aspects, including limitation and condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an unsigned Excel sheet found from a third party, without any corroborating evidence or link to the assessee, are not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments of the ITAT and the Gujarat High Court.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed solely on technical grounds without considering the merits. Therefore, to serve the interest of justice and fair play, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue afresh after condoning the delay and deciding on the merits.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish all necessary documents and explanations.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish all necessary documents and explanations.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was willing to provide the necessary documents and that only one opportunity for hearing was given. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders to allow the assessee another opportunity for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was willing to provide the necessary documents and that only one opportunity for hearing was given. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders to allow the assessee another opportunity for adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and comply with the requirements.
The Tribunal held that transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits for the purpose of Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, penalties under Sections 271D and 271E are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits for the purpose of Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, penalties under Sections 271D and 271E are not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). This grants the assessee another opportunity to present their case and comply with the requirements.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application after allowing only one opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). This was to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and comply with the requirements.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an unsigned Excel sheet found from a third party, without any corroborating evidence or link to the assessee, are not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments of the ITAT and the Gujarat High Court.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an unsigned Excel sheet found from a third party, without any corroborating evidence or link to the assessee, are not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments of the ITAT and the Gujarat High Court.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and comply with the requirements.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present the required details to the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary documents, as the rejection was primarily due to lack of evidence and insufficient opportunity was given.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary documents, as the rejection was primarily due to lack of evidence and insufficient opportunity was given.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(E)'s order. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E) due to their lack of familiarity with online procedures.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present the required details to the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and furnish the required details.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that while Section 12A/12AB registration is a prerequisite for 80G approval, the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(E)'s order. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound by interim judicial orders from the Madras High Court which restrained them from deducting TDS on LFC payments. The subsequent Supreme Court decision did not retrospectively fasten liability.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not provided with the remand report by the Assessing Officer, violating natural justice. The assessee deserves another opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity for the 80G application and was willing to provide missing documents for the 12AB application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to represent the case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were not provided with the remand report by the Assessing Officer, violating natural justice. The assessee deserves another opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) provided only one opportunity for hearing and rejected the application without proper consideration of submissions. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to provide another opportunity for hearing and adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity for the 80G application and was willing to provide missing documents for the 12AB application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was neither digitally nor manually signed. This defect in approval rendered the reassessment proceedings and the subsequent assessment order void.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by NFAC prior to the notification date of Section 151A was invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed was without jurisdiction and quashed. As the assessment was quashed, the penalty imposed was also deleted.