Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the expenses were negligible and incurred in memory of the chairperson, with no personal benefit to any trustee. Therefore, the disallowance and denial of exemption were not justified.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the expenses were negligible and incurred in memory of the chairperson, with no personal benefit to any trustee. Therefore, the disallowance and denial of exemption were not justified.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to contest the addition on merits. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the death of their counsel. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to contest the case on merit before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the addition in the quantum assessment, which formed the basis for the penalty, was already deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty order would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient. While acknowledging the CIT(A)'s partial relief by adopting an average rate for closing stock valuation, the Tribunal found no further grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their chartered accountant. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal held that the 'saudha chitthi' was a 'dumb document' as far as the assessee was concerned, as the assessee and co-owners denied the transactions and the statement of the person from whom the document was seized was retracted. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to violation of principles of natural justice and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, citing violation of natural justice, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, citing violation of natural justice, and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without affording a hearing. The assessment order was passed under Section 144 r.w.s 147, and the Assessing Officer had not examined the basic facts.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (creditor confirmations) as relevant and essential for adjudicating the issue. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination and fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions based solely on unsigned documents and seized materials from a third party without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions, citing lack of independent investigation and conflicting explanations regarding coded entries.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (creditor confirmations) as relevant and essential for adjudicating the issue. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination and fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to contest the additions on merit. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order, and the Assessing Officer had made additions for want of evidence. Therefore, the grounds of appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, held that an addition of 6% of bogus purchases is fair and reasonable. The reopening of assessment was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition. While the CIT(A) correctly identified that the AO's extrapolation for all flats was not fully substantiated, the Tribunal found that some 'on-money' receipt was likely. Therefore, a portion of the addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass an order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act and that the assessee also failed to actively participate. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass the order as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, failing to decide on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including cash books and cash flow statements, to prove the source of the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer had not rebutted or discredited these evidences.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It held that the partnership firm had correctly offered the capital gains and paid tax, and taxing it again in the assessee's hands would lead to double taxation, which is against principles of justice. The firm paying tax at a higher rate was also beneficial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the remaining Rs. 2,48,603/- through bank statements and disclosed exempted interest income. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the penalty levied on the employer bank under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS on the same LTC was deleted due to a bona fide belief, the penalty on the employee assessee should also be deleted. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the penalty liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine contra-entries in the bank statement. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition at the rate of 5% on the net credit of Rs. 23,24,831/-.