Loading ITAT cases…
26 tribunal orders from the Agra bench in 2021.
Showing 26 of 26 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the circumstances surrounding the rectification application and the delayed communication of the order. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, is prospective in nature and does not apply retrospectively. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had made verifications regarding sundry creditors and made an ad-hoc addition based on unverifiable addresses, which was a valid exercise of his discretion. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT's revision order was passed beyond the period of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the deposit as previous savings accumulated over years from various family activities. The Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that the money belonged to someone else or was undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the hands of the guardian was settled through a revenue scheme, the protective addition in the assessee's hands could not be sustained. The protective addition was made solely to protect the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary and dominant object was not profit-making and that its activities were for charitable purposes and general public utility. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, in light of the CBDT circular dated 8th August 2019. This circular states that appeals with a tax effect of Rs 50,00,000 or less will not be pressed by the department.
The Tribunal found that while rejection of books of accounts was justified, the estimated net profit rate of 8% was arbitrary. It directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 6% on gross receipts for estimation of business income.
The Tribunal found that while rejection of books of accounts was justified, the estimated net profit rate of 8% was arbitrary. It directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 6% on gross receipts for estimation of business income.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54, restricting deduction to 'one residential house', was effective from 01.04.2015 and thus not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. It also relied on previous judgments to hold that 'a residential house' can be interpreted in the plural.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in estimating profits at 20% without rejecting the books. It calculated the profit based on actual sales and purchases, estimating the net profit at Rs. 3,00,000/- after considering potential selling costs.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders and failed to decide the appeals on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute resolution under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had no opportunity to furnish evidence before the Assessing Officer due to the ex parte assessment. The CIT(A) also denied admitting additional evidence without considering this fact. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer was aware of the assessee's correct residential address but issued the notice under Section 148 to a different address. Due to the lack of proper service and opportunity for the assessee to present evidence, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs deposited as security for contracts is intricately linked to the assessee's business and should be considered business income. However, the issue of insurance claim income was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to the peculiar facts, including the pandemic and the fact that assessments were completed under Section 143(3). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice requires remanding the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merit. The AO was directed to provide sufficient notice and opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice requires the matter to be sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit. The Assessing Officer is expected to decide the matter expeditiously after issuing sufficient notice and granting the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing the appeals in due course. Since the necessary applications were filed, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for not submitting documents earlier and, in the interest of substantial justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh speaking order after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing and to file necessary details.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on bank deposits and staff loans is eligible for 100% exemption under Section 10-A or 10-B of the Act, as it is an integral part of the export business activity. Other grounds were decided in line with previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on bank deposits and staff loans is eligible for 100% exemption under Section 10-A or 10-B of the Act, as it is an integral part of the export business activity. Other grounds were decided in line with previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on bank deposits and staff loans is eligible for 100% exemption under Section 10-A or 10-B of the Act, as it is an integral part of the export business activity. Other grounds were decided in line with previous decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications, restoring the appeals. Subsequently, the appeals were permitted to be withdrawn and were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the scheme benefits were not processed correctly.