Loading ITAT cases…
27 tribunal orders from the Varanasi bench in 2025.
Showing 27 of 27 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of estimated additions after rejection of books of accounts. There must be a definite finding of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, supported by material evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were student fees and potentially exempt under Section 10(23C). Since this claim was not examined, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored it to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly examine the factual aspects raised by the assessee regarding investments, gifts, and TDS certificates.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the issues in dispute back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a denovo assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned. The ITAT also noted that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not verify this aspect, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a reasonable opportunity for the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the appeal could be restored if the dispute was not settled under the VSVS.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing a fresh order.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it was settled under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee can seek restoration if the dispute is not settled by the scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not settled under the scheme.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by law. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the issue in dispute back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found it necessary to conduct further factual verification on the disputed issues. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a denovo order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a de novo order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The assessee is to be provided a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal considered the Revenue's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the VSVS and received certificates. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the VSVS and received certificates. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the VSVS and received certificates. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case and evidence. The penalty appeal was also restored for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to personal circumstances. Considering the assessee's request and the lack of objection from the revenue, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the AO, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case and evidence. The penalty appeal was also restored for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and NFAC orders were ex-parte. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity and the lack of objection from the Revenue, restored the case to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to present all necessary evidence to support the bank deposits.