Loading ITAT cases…
95 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings were set aside, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, with liberty to reinitiate if warranted.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of documents found in the possession of a third party without corroborative evidence. The revenue failed to prove that the assessee received the additional salary, and the assessee's records showed otherwise. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee company is an instrumentality of the State, meeting the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court to be considered a 'STATE'. Therefore, it is entitled to immunity from taxation under the Income Tax Act as per Article 289 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the subsequent acceptance of returned income with no additions. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-cooperation during the original assessment proceedings was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s quashing of the assessment due to procedural irregularity in not disposing of objections to reopening was an error that should be rectified by restoring the issue to the AO. Regarding merits, the Tribunal found that the issue of bogus purchases needed further verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is an instrumentality of the State, owned and controlled by the Government of Jharkhand. Therefore, it is considered a 'STATE' under Article 12 and entitled to immunity from Union taxation as per Article 289 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis of penalty proceedings were set aside, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAC(1) had no foundation. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s quashing of the assessment due to procedural irregularity in not disposing of objections to reopening was an error that should be rectified by restoring the issue to the AO. Regarding merits, the Tribunal found that the issue of bogus purchases needed further verification.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty levied under Section 270A was deleted as it was based on the quantum proceedings which were set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis of penalty proceedings were set aside, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAC(1) had no foundation. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis of penalty proceedings were set aside, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAC(1) had no foundation. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that FCRA registration is not a prerequisite for obtaining registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-adjudicate the assessee's applications for 12A and 80G registration without considering the FCRA issue.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The penalty levied under Section 270A was deleted as it was based on the quantum proceedings which were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued with approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT), as required by the amended Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the notice was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the genuineness of the transactions and certificates. The assessee was directed to cooperate and produce necessary documents.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate by providing all necessary evidence and documentation.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the miscellaneous applications. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid as it provided less than the statutorily required seven clear days for compliance. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in consonance with the mandatory CBDT instructions and was therefore invalid. Consequently, all subsequent assessment proceedings were also deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had repaid the loan through banking channels and that the lender's balance sheet also reflected the transaction. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in Pr.CIT Vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd., the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities like limitation. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not alleged that the assets were claimed as an application of income. To verify this, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) provided less than the mandatory seven clear days for the assessee to respond. This made the notice bad in law and consequently quashed it along with all subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that based on a previous decision for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, where similar disallowances were deleted, the current disallowance should also be deleted. The previous decision relied on a certificate from the Village Mukhia confirming agricultural land ownership and income.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider the applicability of Rule 46A for any fresh evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee adequate opportunity to present evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate by providing all required details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication, providing one last chance to the assessee to explain its case. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the applicability of Rule 46A for any fresh evidence and ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking reasoning. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application, noting the simplicity of the issues. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and consider Rule 46A regarding fresh evidence.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application, noting the simplicity of the issues. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and consider Rule 46A regarding fresh evidence.
The tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was to allow for obtaining a valuation report from the DVO regarding the property.
The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the re-adjudication proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148A was indeed invalid as it failed to provide the mandatory 7 days' time for compliance. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to the lack of a speaking order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to examine the admissibility of fresh evidence under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer was also permitted to call for a DVO report if necessary.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings to ensure an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the registrations under sections 12A and 80G were granted by the CIT(E) after the appeals were filed. Therefore, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.
The assessee's authorized representative informed the tribunal that they wished to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings to ensure an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the registrations under sections 12A and 80G were granted by the CIT(E) after the appeals were filed. Therefore, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. Since no addition was made in the consequential quantum order, the penalty levied was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to examine the admissibility of fresh evidence under Rule 46A.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to examine the admissibility of fresh evidence under Rule 46A.