Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's unsatisfactory conduct but, in the interest of justice, granted one final opportunity. This was conditional upon the assessee paying Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund and actively participating in future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to initiate reassessment proceedings based on the information received. The assessee's claim of the vendor company's non-existence required further examination.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271E are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the CIT(A) should have examined the matter on merits instead of dismissing the appeal solely on delay. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on 'dumb documents' like WhatsApp chats and unsigned excel sheets without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also noted defects in the approval for reopening and the lack of proper opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) is directed to re-examine the issues after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit supporting documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the issues after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on 'dumb documents' like WhatsApp chats and unsigned excel sheets without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also noted defects in the approval for reopening and the lack of proper opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served within the limitation period prescribed by Section 149, as the income escapement was below the threshold limit for extended period reassessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the lower authorities' order was non-speaking. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that only the profit element of 'on-money' should be taxed, not the entire receipt. However, due to inconsistencies in documents and failure to submit all evidence, the entire relief was not granted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served within the limitation period prescribed by Section 149, as the income escapement was below the threshold limit for extended period reassessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and lack of documentary evidence. It decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant documents and evidence before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from State Bank of India, a nationalized bank, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as it is neither a co-operative society nor a co-operative bank. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee regarding this disallowance was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the consultant's lapse. It also noted that the lower appellate authority passed ex-parte and non-speaking orders.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the consultant's lapse. It also noted that the lower appellate authority passed ex-parte and non-speaking orders.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 3,809 days, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's reliance on their tax consultant and the circumstances beyond their control. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to adjudicate the current appeal along with the pending quantum appeal. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A).