Loading ITAT cases…
74 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and loan confirmations, to substantiate the unsecured loan and its repayment. It also found no justification for disallowing interest expenses on the unsecured loan by comparing it to lower interest earned on FDRs.
The Tribunal found infirmities in the Assessing Officer's order, noting no specific evidence or show cause notice for the addition and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without specific reasons. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had ignored crucial evidence submitted by the assessee explaining the posting error. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that while the notice under section 148 was validly served by affixture at the last known address, the additions made ex-parte should be decided de novo. The issue of the time limit for issuing the notice under section 148 was also restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and loan confirmations, to substantiate the unsecured loan and its repayment. It also found no justification for disallowing interest expenses on the unsecured loan by comparing it to lower interest earned on FDRs.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on a retrospective amendment, as it amounts to a mere change of opinion. The assessment was quashed on technical grounds.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the agreement was for the professional management of the hospital and not for deriving profit or benefiting specific individuals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities were in accordance with its charitable objects and in the best interest of charity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in conformity with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was not a reasoned order on merit. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was approved. The assessee can file a miscellaneous application if any issue remains unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal decided that the reopening of the assessment was valid. However, the addition for unexplained cash deposits was deleted due to lack of proper evidence from the Revenue.
The Tribunal decided that the reopening of the assessment was valid. However, the addition for unexplained cash deposits was deleted due to lack of proper evidence from the Revenue.
The Tribunal considered the submissions for withdrawal under the "Vivad se Vishwas" Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal considered the submissions for withdrawal under the "Vivad se Vishwas" Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal considered the submissions for withdrawal under the "Vivad se Vishwas" Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal considered the submissions for withdrawal under the "Vivad se Vishwas" Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for assessments under Section 147. Since the Revenue could not produce proof of such notice being issued, the assessment was deemed bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal rejected the ground challenging the ex-parte orders. For AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. For AY 2014-15, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimated basis, particularly on estimation of Gross Profit. Relying on various High Court and Coordinate Bench judgments, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal admitted additional documents for the LTCG issue and set aside the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, for the cash deposit issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the issue for verification of tax payment. The CIT(A) is to verify the affidavit and, if satisfied, allow the assessee to rectify other irregularities before deciding the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the issue for verification of tax payment. The CIT(A) is to verify the affidavit and, if satisfied, allow the assessee to rectify other irregularities before deciding the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal rejected the ground challenging the ex-parte orders. For AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted. For AY 2014-15, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.