Loading ITAT cases…
30 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench in 2021.
Showing 30 of 30 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and their compliance with the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and their compliance with the scheme's requirements.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the show-cause notice under Section 274 does not clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court and the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal directed the cancellation of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the show-cause notice under Section 274 does not clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court and the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal directed the cancellation of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the show-cause notice under Section 274 does not clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court and the Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal directed the cancellation of the penalty.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The Tribunal granted this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas benefit.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the CIT(A) erred in estimating profits when accounts were duly furnished. Due to the department's failure to provide a remand report and traceable case records, the additions made on estimation were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be vague and insufficient to constitute a "sufficient cause" for not filing the appeal within the limitation period. Therefore, the appeal was not admitted.
The Tribunal held that while a formal entry for transfer of goods was missing, the HUF is a separate legal entity for tax purposes and can conduct business. Therefore, rejecting the HUF's business solely on this ground was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already included these sundry debtors in its gross turnover for calculating net profit and paid taxes accordingly, no addition was warranted. The explanation for the difference, such as delayed receipt of invoices by parties, was also considered.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present necessary details and evidence to establish the source of credit card payments.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on deeming provisions was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the part payment was made by cheque as per the agreement's terms, and the amendment requiring payment on or before the agreement date was not applicable at the time of the transaction.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities made additions on assumptions without considering the evidence and details furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The AO did not point out any defects in the provided evidence.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to availing the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the land in question was agricultural land based on revenue records and its classification as 'Don' land. The presence of a residential bungalow on a small portion of the large acreage did not convert the entire land into a non-agricultural asset.
The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer due to violations of the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and dispose of the case afresh.