Loading ITAT cases…
34 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause as the assessee was pursuing an alternate remedy. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate on the issues of grants received at the fag end of the financial year and the procedural introduction of Form 9A.
The ITAT observed that the assessee passed away before the CIT(A) order was passed and the legal heirs were not brought on record. The ITAT directed the legal heirs to file an amended Form 35 before the CIT(A) to pursue the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The issue of registration rejection was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after verifying previous submissions and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the penalty, being consequential to the annulled assessment, had no independent existence. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision was binding until modified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's pursuit of alternate remedies in good faith. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and therefore remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's wife's medical condition, imposing a cost. The explanation regarding gold loans provided for the first time before the Tribunal was not considered on merits and the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing a liberal approach to procedural delays. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's pursuit of alternate remedies in good faith. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and therefore remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the submission of fresh evidence before the ITAT, which was not available to the lower authorities, particularly regarding the tax-exempt status of the recipients.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the submission of fresh evidence before the ITAT, which was not available to the lower authorities, particularly regarding the tax-exempt status of the recipients.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the submission of fresh evidence before the ITAT, which was not available to the lower authorities, particularly regarding the tax-exempt status of the recipients.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the submission of fresh evidence before the ITAT, which was not available to the lower authorities, particularly regarding the tax-exempt status of the recipients.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the submission of fresh evidence before the ITAT, which was not available to the lower authorities, particularly regarding the tax-exempt status of the recipients.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the submission of fresh evidence before the ITAT, which was not available to the lower authorities, particularly regarding the tax-exempt status of the recipients.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are made on an estimated basis without specific incriminating material or a scientific method. The assessee's acceptance of estimated additions does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including financial records and bank statements, as they were crucial for proper adjudication. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment after considering these documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding the source of cash deposits, making the assessment order erroneous. The PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 to direct verification of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing a liberal approach to procedural delays. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the large cash deposits and the source of acquisition of such money. The AO's addition of the peak credit amount as unexplained income was upheld.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify genuine purchases of Rs. 6,53,030/- and allowed the disallowance of labor charges, finding the assessee's claim for daily wage laborers unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on April 4, 2022, was beyond the six-year limitation period for assessment years commencing on or before April 1, 2021, and therefore, it was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) are independent of the notice issued under section 148. Since the assessee did not dispute non-compliance with section 142(1) notices or provide a reasonable cause, the penalty was upheld but reduced.
The Tribunal held that since the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) would not survive. The appeal before the CIT(A) was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on April 28, 2022, for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed six-year period. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 on April 4, 2022, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order was also held invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000, citing the assessee's medical condition and the need for a justice-oriented approach. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, finding that the assessee had not written off the bad debts in its books and was still pursuing recovery. Therefore, the provision was not allowable as an expenditure. The Tribunal also confirmed the direction for proper enquiry regarding the excess levy of demand.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- was not justified. The assessee had explained the sources of the cash, maintained a cash book showing sufficient balance, and deposited the money within the government's window. The Assessing Officer failed to disprove the assessee's contentions or conduct necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the third floor of the purchased property was approved as residential. It further held that demolition of the new asset in a subsequent year does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction in the year of purchase, as Section 54F(3) is triggered by transfer, not demolition, and applies to tax the gain in the year of transfer.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte as the assessee was not validly served with notice of hearing. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without affording the AO an opportunity to examine or rebut it. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the bonafide mistake of filing a fresh appeal instead of impleading the legal heir constituted a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the matter on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte because notices for hearings were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after proper notice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte because notices for hearings were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after proper notice.