Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the interest of substantial justice. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the remand proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings despite repeated opportunities, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings despite repeated opportunities, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had passed the order ex parte without adjudicating on merits, and in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the failure to explain the source of deposits but allowed the benefit of the basic exemption limit. It accepted the assessee's offer to pay tax on 20% of the remaining amount to buy peace.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal noted the assessee's habitual default and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, citing principles of natural justice and to provide the assessee a final opportunity. The assessee was directed to deposit costs of Rs.1,000 with the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged on-money payment. The reduced addition is to be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed without considering the DVO's report and the CIT(A) order was ex parte. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination after considering the DVO's report and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged undisclosed investment, following a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts. The addition was directed to be taxed under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost payment, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged undisclosed investment, following a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts. The addition was directed to be taxed under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 11,00,000/- credit was a mere transfer between the assessee's bank accounts, satisfactorily explaining its source. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for Chapter VI-A deductions and the Rs. 50,000/- addition was also explained as loan repayment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of substantial justice, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying costs and cooperating with the proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case, subject to full cooperation and compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to obtain mandatory prior approval under Section 148B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is required for search-related assessments initiated after April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as it was neither manually nor digitally signed, violating Section 282A. Consequently, all consequential proceedings, including the reassessment order, were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to obtain mandatory prior approval under Section 148B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is required for search-related assessments initiated after April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice, subject to the assessee paying costs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and comply with notices from the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on an addition or disallowance that is made on an ad-hoc or estimated basis. Since the confirmed disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000/- was an estimate, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the return filing, prescribed form, and exemption entitlement required further verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision with identical facts, directed that the addition be restricted to 10% of the alleged cash payment (Rs. 52,500). This amount was to be taxed under the normal provisions of the Act, not under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the material and the reasons for reopening were vague. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the material and the reasons for reopening were vague. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical facts.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's medical condition. It was held that the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee to present supporting documents for the agricultural income claim.
The tribunal held that for AY 2025-26, Section 87A did not restrict rebate on tax payable under Section 111A, as the restriction was introduced prospectively from AY 2026-27. The adjustment made by the CPC without notice was also found to be procedurally flawed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the amended provisions of the Income-tax Act. The notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year, for an escaped income below Rs. 50,00,000.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 16,347/- under Section 14A, which was correctly computed and supported by documentation. The rectification order by the AO was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender, as well as the source of funds. Therefore, the conditions under Section 68 of the Act were satisfied.
The tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was within the 10% tolerance limit prescribed by the proviso to Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, holding that the matter should be reconsidered. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the application after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present the necessary documents. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted the non-compliance was not deliberate and granted the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned a 4-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the matters to the CIT(E). The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present its case and evidence to the CIT(E). The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and directed the matter to be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned a 4-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the matters to the CIT(E). The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance to be reasonable. It held that the trust should be granted one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to file the correct application due to a bonafide mistake.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was not on merits but due to non-compliance with notices. It granted one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish all documents and explanations.
The tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the interest of justice and fair play. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the authorities.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make an ad-hoc estimated addition of 10% of the 'on-money' amount (Rs. 43,333/-) at the normal rate of income tax, not under Section 115BBE, to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to substantiate claims and cooperate, granted one final opportunity based on principles of natural justice, subject to a cost of ₹500. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.