Loading ITAT cases…
50 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the order was passed ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that it can only be levied on the returned income, not the assessed income, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no specific error pointed out by the revenue. It confirmed that the assessee's approvals under Section 10(23C)(vi) and Section 12AA were not withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of unexplained investments to the CIT(A) for further examination and verification, providing an opportunity for the assessees to substantiate their claims. For the issue of undisclosed interest in one appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since registered sale deeds were executed and not cancelled, they could not be overlooked. The assessee's claim of no consideration received was not substantiated.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the assessee's claim for retrenchment compensation. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's explanation that the liability was accounted for on an accrual basis and disbursed upon receipt of funds from the principal contractor.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration should not be based on the application of income but on the genuineness of the activities. The CIT(E) was directed to grant registration to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the matter of estimating profit based on turnover needed further verification by the AO. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's claim regarding net profit rates from preceding and subsequent years.
The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to verify the assessee's claim and pass an order after providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of unexplained investments to the CIT(A) for further examination and verification, providing an opportunity for the assessees to substantiate their claims. For the issue of undisclosed interest in one appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the order was passed ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that it can only be levied on the returned income, not the assessed income, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were bad in law and void ab-initio, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that the loan was a trade advance and referred to CBDT Circular No. 19/2017, which clarifies that such advances are not deemed dividends. It remitted the entire issue of deemed dividend back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and examination, after considering the CBDT Circular. The Tribunal also directed the AO to calculate interest under Sections 234A and 234B as per the jurisdictional High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have waited for the remand report from the AO before deciding the appeal. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining the remand report.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the order was passed ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that it can only be levied on the returned income, not the assessed income, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the order was passed ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that it can only be levied on the returned income, not the assessed income, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to furnish all supporting details and proofs to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that a new ground challenging the validity of the notice under Section 147/148 was raised for the first time. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that remuneration and interest received by a partner from a firm are taxable as business income as per Section 28(v) of the Income Tax Act. It also directed the AO to verify the allowability of expenses claimed against this business income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte because the assessee failed to appear. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to render substantial justice.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT, held that it has the power to consider new grounds and evidence if they are necessary for a correct assessment of tax liability. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for examination of the additional evidence.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the assessee's explanation regarding the source of deposits being a loan from the son-in-law for a flat purchase. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT that the AO's failure to properly examine expenses and consider Section 40(a)(ia) made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order directing a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order directing a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submission regarding inadequate opportunity to substantiate claims before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the gold stock difference and estimated unaccounted receipts required further verification. Therefore, both these issues were remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh examination and decision.
The Tribunal held that double addition in respect of capital cannot be taxed in the hands of both the firm and its partners. Considering the High Court's directions and an undertaking from the assessee to withdraw partner appeals, the CIT(A)'s reasoned order was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the gold stock difference and estimated unaccounted receipts required further verification. Therefore, both these issues were remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh examination and decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unaccounted production and cessation of liabilities, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings. However, the issue of unaccounted raw material purchases was remanded back to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12A/12AA is a prerequisite for granting approval under Section 80G(5)(vi). Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) was justified in rejecting the application.
The tribunal admitted the additional ground concerning the notice under Section 143(2) as it was a legal issue going to the root of the matter. Both parties agreed to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue afresh after considering the relevant details and documents to be filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that estimation of income is not permissible without rejecting the assessee's books of account. Since the books were not rejected, the Assessing Officer's action was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea of voluminous vouchers and the need for a specific request for verification was reasonable. The revenue did not object to granting another opportunity.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to produce the PAN details of the transporters, as claimed, for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion, not on any new material. The Assessing Officer had access to the same set of facts during the original assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AA of the Act after the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for reconsideration in light of the registration, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.