Loading ITAT cases…
221 orders · Page 5 of 5
The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention proper notice issuance or consideration of evidence filed before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication and to provide an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the identity and creditworthiness of the lender were established, and the purpose of the funds was known. The subsequent utilization of funds or lack of immediate approval does not automatically make the receipt an unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the exemption was allowed without substantiation. The Principal CIT's order invoking Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details, including fund flow statements, bank statements, and confirmations, to establish the nexus between the expenses incurred and the income earned. Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 57 was rightly claimed.
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 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 noted the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal or rectifying the defects. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
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 Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the depositors and the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A)'s reduction to peak credit was considered reasonable, and the plea for telescoping income was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the generation of agricultural income needed to be examined by the revenue authorities. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a proper examination of the agricultural operations and income.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to provide relevant documents to the assessee and pass a de novo assessment order after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment and gratuity, based on actuarial valuations, are ascertained liabilities. It also held that provisions for doubtful debts, when reduced from the asset side, represent actual write-offs and are not unascertained liabilities.