Loading ITAT cases…
221 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals where the Revenue sought withdrawal due to low tax effect. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, which rejected the Revenue's appeals on similar grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals where the Revenue sought withdrawal due to low tax effect. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, which rejected the Revenue's appeals on similar grounds.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to genuine technical difficulties faced by the assessee. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals where the Revenue sought withdrawal due to low tax effect. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, which rejected the Revenue's appeals on similar grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals where the Revenue sought withdrawal due to low tax effect. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, which rejected the Revenue's appeals on similar grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals where the Revenue sought withdrawal due to low tax effect. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, which rejected the Revenue's appeals on similar grounds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that inter-branch transfers are internal movements of goods and do not constitute external revenue, and thus should be excluded from turnover for income tax purposes. Consequently, the assessee's turnover falls below the threshold for the concessional tax rate.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to examine the cash flow statements and other details filed by the assessee after issuing a fresh notice. The assessee is to comply and provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and without addressing the merits. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter for de novo assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the loan transactions were conducted through banking channels, interest was paid with TDS, and the creditors offered the interest income in their returns. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting solely as a developer and that the amounts treated as income by the AO were genuine liabilities. The Tribunal further held that the addition on account of capital gains was based on presumption without sufficient evidence of actual consideration received.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the onus of proving the source of the cash deposit as agriculture income. The rejection of the explanation solely due to a third party's non-response was deemed unjust.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to discharge the burden of proof regarding the source of unexplained deposits and credits. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents emphasizing the assessee's responsibility to explain the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make an addition on grounds not forming part of the reasons for reopening, especially when the original reason for reopening was not pursued. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the addition of Rs. 6,37,000/- was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's unit was indeed located in an eligible area as per the CBDT notification, and the discrepancy in the village name was a clerical error. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IC was allowable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's unit was indeed located in an eligible industrial area as per the CBDT notification, and the discrepancy in the village name was a clerical error. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IC was allowable.
The Tribunal found that despite the clerical error in the 10CCB report, the assessee's unit was indeed located in an eligible industrial area as per the CBDT notification. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IC was allowable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the CBDT circular extending the e-filing deadline and without giving proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also noted the casual attitude of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the sale deed's consideration was for a specific area, but the stamp duty value was determined for the total plot area. The CIT(A) had already provided relief based on the DVO's report, which considered the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from investments made in another co-operative society (GSCB) is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Gujarat High Court's ruling in similar cases was followed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income should be treated as business income and expenses should be allowed against it. The absence of an NBFC license does not alter the character of the income earned from financing activities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to explain the source of investment in the immovable property by providing partner's capital contributions, confirmations, and their financial details. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to correlate the bank deposits with the agricultural income, for which the assessee had provided ample evidence. The addition was therefore considered unjustifiable.
The Tribunal held that interest received from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). For interest received from nationalized banks, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify proportionate expenditure.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer were allowed to examine the details of the loan parties. Therefore, the matter was referred back to the Assessing Officer for examination and decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided substantial details and a plausible explanation for the cash deposits, supported by evidence. The Department had not conducted sufficient inquiry to verify the assessee's claims.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, and in some cases, passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, and in some cases, passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, and in some cases, passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 40A(3), finding that the purchase of agricultural produce directly from farmers was supported by evidence. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of gross profit based on earlier years.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee another opportunity to explain the transactions and provide evidence. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, and in some cases, passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from investments made in another co-operative society (GSCB) is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Gujarat High Court's ruling in similar cases was followed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from investments made in another co-operative society (GSCB) is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Gujarat High Court's ruling in similar cases was followed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as genuine. However, it remanded the matter back to the AO for proper adjudication, noting the assessee's failure to appear before the AO and provide details.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee another opportunity to explain the transactions and provide evidence. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 40A(3), finding that the purchase of agricultural produce directly from farmers was supported by evidence. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of gross profit based on earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was passed in gross violation of natural justice as it failed to address the assessee's detailed legal and factual submissions. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had made a conscious decision after due inquiry.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals, set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the BIFR's sanctioned scheme, which included relief from Section 72(3), overrides the Income Tax Act provisions. Therefore, the disallowance of brought forward business losses was deleted.
The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons, all claims not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. Therefore, revision proceedings initiated after the approval of the resolution plan are invalid.