Loading ITAT cases…
110 tribunal orders from the Agra bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 110 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which states that appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs or less should not be filed or pressed. The Department was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included where the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which states that appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs or less should not be filed or pressed. The Department was granted liberty to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included where the tax effect exceeded the limit.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice requires the matters to be sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals expeditiously after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing and time to produce evidence.
The Tribunal restored all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to address the issue of potential double taxation on sundry creditors and to consider evidence regarding the genuineness of creditors.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner was mechanical and without application of mind, rendering it no approval in the eyes of law. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was done mechanically without application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. The revenue was denied a second inning to rectify its mistake.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowed funds, which were advanced to sister concerns for earning interest income, is deductible under Section 57(iii). The primary motive of earning income, not actual profit, is sufficient for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the application without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The CIT did not issue a show cause notice specifying the reasons for rejection. The matter was restored to the CIT for fresh consideration after affording sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in rejecting the application without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The CIT did not issue a show cause notice specifying the reasons for rejection. The matter was restored to the CIT for fresh consideration after affording sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the rectification application and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to decide whether the exempt income was wrongly included and if it should be excluded, whether any tax demand would still be payable.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments were made due to business expediency and were covered by exceptions under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. It noted the lack of banking facilities in the area and the insistence on cash payments by agents and truck drivers, especially for night deliveries.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the audited accounts, which were due by September 30, 2008, but were filed only on March 25, 2011. The assessee's conduct did not demonstrate an intention to comply with the law.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the payments made to Dr. Ravi Shankar Dalmia were unreasonable. The comparable instances cited by the AO were not appropriate, and the revenue generated by Dr. Dalmia's services supported the remuneration paid. Consistency with previous assessment years was also noted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the CBDT circular which restricts appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the tax effect was miscalculated or other exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A is a machinery provision for processing TDS statements and making adjustments. Even for belated filings before June 1, 2015, the AO was competent to levy fee under Section 234E, especially since the amendment to Section 200A effective from June 1, 2015, specifically provided for computing such fees.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings were not substantiated with evidence and were therefore dismissed. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that while the circle rate for commercial property was applicable, some discount was warranted due to tenants' possession. The matter was remanded for fresh valuation.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was invalid as it was granted without application of mind and without reviewing the relevant records. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in referring the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A as the assessee did not maintain books of account and had admitted to unaccounted investment. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of an addition of Rs. 28,36,777/- was found to be reasonable and logistic.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, as the tax effect was within the prescribed monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, as the tax effect was within the prescribed monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 92,00,000/- as unexplained capital under Section 68. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also upheld due to the failure to prove the creditworthiness of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, as the tax effect was within the prescribed monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if any appeal was inadvertently included.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's delay and latches but, considering the object of tax collection, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000.
The Tribunal held that the AO had already considered the same material regarding cash payments and self-made vouchers during the original assessment. Therefore, reopening the assessment under Section 147 based on the same facts constituted a change of opinion and was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that removing moisture from skimmed milk and guthale from ghee does not constitute manufacturing. Therefore, profits from the sale of such goods are not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT circular, the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to the Revenue to seek recall if the tax effect was wrongly computed or if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's delay and latches but, considering the object of tax collection, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal restored the matter of penalty to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the quantum appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the partners and the source of the capital introduction. The explanations provided were inconsistent and lacked documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee explained the cash deposits based on the cash book, which was not disputed by the AO. Regarding the disallowance of interest on a loan to a charitable trust, the Tribunal did not decide on merits due to a circular regarding tax effect. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground concerning TDS on interest paid to a bank, following High Court precedent.
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of 12% NP was arbitrary. Considering comparable cases and the increase in turnover, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 6% NP rate on gross receipts. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as academic and below the monetary limit.
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of 12% NP was arbitrary. Considering comparable cases and the increase in turnover, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 6% NP rate on gross receipts. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as academic and below the monetary limit.