Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the sources of funds before the lower authorities. Many documents were filed for the first time before the ITAT, and the explanation for cash deposits was not convincing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 without following the procedure under Section 148A was invalid. Regarding the addition for unexplained investment, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 15 lakhs and deleted the balance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 without following the procedure under Section 148A was invalid. Regarding the addition for unexplained investment, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 15 lakhs and deleted the balance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the crucial ground regarding the validity of the reopening notice. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of this issue and other grounds.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period as per the unamended Section 149(1)(b). Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The core issue is whether interest earned by the society on deposits qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as operational income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and invalid because they failed to specify the exact violation for which the penalty was invoked. Consequently, the penalty proceedings and the levied penalties were also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and therefore invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days on medical grounds. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for admitting the appeal and adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition was wrongly made in the assessee's hands as the bank account and its deposits belonged to Mr. Pentakota Narasinga Rao. Evidence, including bank statements, confirmed the third-party ownership.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be best served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the delay with supporting medical documents, and if satisfactory, the appeal should be heard on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be best served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee is to be given an opportunity to explain the delay with supporting medical papers, and if satisfactory, the appeal should be heard on its merits.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal petition filed by the assessee and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under section 148 of the Act was quashed by the High Court, the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Income Tax Act. It was observed that various tribunals have granted FTC even when Form 67 was submitted late, provided the claim is genuine and foreign tax payment is proven.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 19.04.2022 was invalid as it was issued beyond the six-year limitation period. Consequently, all proceedings initiated pursuant to this notice were also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's request and the revenue's lack of objection.
The ITAT decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A) due to the assessee being a charitable trust with genuine activities. A nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as per the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, all assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that due to non-service of proper notices and lack of evidence, the matter could not be adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that notices were not properly served on the assessee, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's medical condition (bypass surgery) and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits. A token cost was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of six years from the end of the assessment year, contrary to the first proviso to Section 149(1). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions, including the Sikkim High Court, which considered the ratio laid down in the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be best served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee should be given an opportunity to explain the delay with supporting medical documents, and if satisfactory, the appeal should be heard on its merits.
The Tribunal held that due to non-service of proper notices and lack of evidence, the matter could not be adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and therefore invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and therefore invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and therefore invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and therefore invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and therefore invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued were ambiguous and therefore invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notices and consequential penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal found that notices were not properly served on the assessee, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that notices were not properly served on the assessee, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be best served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee is to be given an opportunity to explain the delay with supporting medical papers, and if satisfactory, the appeal should be heard on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper explanation and documentary evidence for the cash deposits even during appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were dismissed without proper consideration of the reasons for delay and without affording adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were dismissed without proper consideration of the reasons for delay and without affording adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were dismissed without proper consideration of the reasons for delay and without affording adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order as the AO had considered the assessee's replies. However, due to new legal grounds raised by the assessee concerning the validity of notices, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that additional documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was crucial for a proper assessment and had not been examined by the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment after verifying the new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was negligent in not appearing before the lower authorities and imposed a cost. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present evidence and arguments.
The Tribunal held that once valid registration under Section 12AB is granted, the Assessing Officer must rectify the assessment order to give consequential effect to the registration. The denial of exemption on technicalities during the original assessment is not sustainable when subsequent registration is obtained.
The Tribunal held that once valid registration under Section 12AB is granted, the Assessing Officer must rectify the assessment order to give consequential effect to the registration. The denial of exemption on technicalities during the original assessment is not sustainable when subsequent registration is obtained.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of a key person. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify if the cash deposits were already included in the assessee's turnover.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper explanation and documentary evidence for the cash deposits even during appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The lower appellate authority's decision to uphold the addition was based on the assessee's failure to pursue the appeal effectively and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal found that new documentary evidence, including affidavits, was filed before it. To ensure proper satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the loans, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication and examination of loan creditors.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The lower appellate authority's decision to uphold the addition was based on the assessee's failure to pursue the appeal effectively and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Instructions are binding on Assessing Officers. Since the assessee had no business income and the deposit was marginally above Rs. 2.5 lakhs, no addition should have been made as per CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017.