Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including contract notes, demat details, and bonus share information. The Tribunal noted that SEBI's investigation did not find any adverse material against the assessee or her broker.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it failed to adjudicate on the grounds of appeal with reasons. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity for hearing and without adhering to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to contest the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 is treated as a return filed under Section 139 and replaces the original return. Therefore, if the Assessing Officer accepts the revised return without variation, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on the income declared in the revised return.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to a Section 148 notice. This procedural lapse renders the reassessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the investment in his books of account and the plots were purchased in AY 2009-10. Therefore, the addition for unexplained investment and the STCG were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details of the lenders. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the loans, along with interest, were repaid before the assessment order was passed, and this fact was brought to the attention of the CIT(A). Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the repayment of the loan was considered sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay without proper verification of the non-service of the penalty order. Given that the additions in the quantum assessment were deleted, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 60,30,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained gifts, finding that the donor had sufficient creditworthiness and capacity. The tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of an unsigned assessment order as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the name mismatch was likely an inadvertent error and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to explain or correct it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the mismatch in the name might be an inadvertent mistake, as the registration number and PAN were not in dispute. The assessee was not given an opportunity to explain or correct the discrepancy.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. In the interest of justice and to ensure principles of natural justice, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding agricultural income due to lack of evidence of land ownership. For cash deposits, the Tribunal accepted a gift of Rs. 3.50 lakhs and allowed a further relief of Rs. 2.50 lakhs based on CBDT instructions, but upheld the addition for the remaining amount due to unverified rental income and cash book discrepancies.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to submit the missing audited accounts for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22 and other requisite details. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass the order as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, as it was not based on merits after considering submissions. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to plead their case.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause (COVID-19 pandemic) and that the subsequent completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) indicated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's eventual compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause (COVID-19 pandemic) and that the subsequent completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) indicated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's eventual compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause (COVID-19 pandemic) and that the subsequent completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) indicated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's eventual compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause (COVID-19 pandemic) and that the subsequent completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) indicated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's eventual compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause (COVID-19 pandemic) and that the subsequent completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) indicated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's eventual compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause (COVID-19 pandemic) and that the subsequent completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) indicated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's eventual compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to a reasonable cause (COVID-19 pandemic) and that the subsequent completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) indicated that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's eventual compliance. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and not in accordance with the law, noting a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-response. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex parte without properly considering the adjournment request, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the death of the assessee's representative. The Tribunal also restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, as the original addition and the CIT(A)'s confirmation were made ex parte.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. The Revenue appealed this deletion, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the AO's findings regarding inflated costs and the applicability of Section 56(2)(x).
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an affected party to be granted sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard as the show cause notice was served after the assessment order was passed. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case, directing them to be more vigilant in future compliance.