Loading ITAT cases…
129 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as it failed to provide the benefit of the cost of acquisition with indexation for the land. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made.
The Tribunal held that the income from sale of land was to be treated as capital gains, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision and previous rulings in the assessee's own case. For one appeal, a partial disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not providing sufficient opportunities and not considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard, which is essential for natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the assessee had complied with the extended deadline provided by the EPFO circular. The lower authorities failed to consider this circular.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in accepting cash sales where the assessee provided complete purchase/sales registers and stock details. The Tribunal also found that the protective addition was not sustainable as the assessee had no transactions with the parties involved.
The Tribunal held that the income from sale of land was to be treated as capital gains, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision and previous rulings in the assessee's own case. For one appeal, a partial disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A was confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the evidence on record and any new evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the written submissions and a prior order in a related case. To meet the ends of justice, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal found the orders of the revenue authorities to be casual and arbitrary, noting that the AO had attributed deposits to a bank account that did not belong to the assessee. Despite the assessee clarifying the correct bank accounts and the nature of deposits, the addition was confirmed without proper application of mind.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice and fair play, considering the notices were issued during the COVID period.
The Tribunal held that Section 13(1)(b) is applicable only at the stage of granting exemption under Section 11, not at the stage of granting registration under Section 12A. The objects of the trust were found to be largely charitable for the general public.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order. It found that the interest had already been capitalized by the assessee and that no show-cause notice was issued regarding exceptional items, making the revision unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the double taxation of the partner's interest income was a prima facie mistake and not permissible in law. Both lower authorities failed to consider this apparent error.
The Tribunal held that there was no delay in filing the appeal, as the CIT(A) incorrectly calculated the delay without considering the statutory time limit. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a valid reason for not attending the CIT(A) proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and to adjudicate the issues after considering the evidence.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order, directing the CIT(A) to dispose of the penalty appeal along with the pending quantum appeal. The CIT(A) was also given liberty to decide on the appeal fee.
The Tribunal noted that ex-parte orders were passed without proper opportunity and that additions appeared unjustified based on available records. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the DIT(E) did not consider all the objects and documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the DIT(E) for proper adjudication after verifying all details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided details of purchase from each party and the specific rates. The AO had not questioned the purchase price and incorrectly applied an average price to calculate capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as it was passed without conducting proper inquiries into all the deposits. Therefore, the PCIT's order to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263. It found that the Assessing Officer had considered the assessee's records, including consumption details and audit reports, and that the PCIT had not demonstrated how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of weighted deduction as the donation was found to be bogus and fraudulently claimed. The assessee's claim that book profits should not be adjusted for this bogus donation was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed the amount as a deduction, but rather added it back to the total income while computing income from business/profession. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to their demise. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered all aspects of the issue, including the unaccounted cash and estimated expenses, and had taken a plausible view. The PCIT's attempt to take a second view under Section 263 was not permissible as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal found the orders of the revenue authorities to be casual and arbitrary, noting that the AO had attributed deposits to a bank account that did not belong to the assessee. Despite the assessee clarifying the correct bank accounts and the nature of deposits, the addition was confirmed without proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justifiable as the assessee had provided all necessary details regarding turnover and profit calculations during the assessment proceedings. The assessment order was not found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.