Loading ITAT cases…
366 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, treating it as retrenchment compensation. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief.
The Tribunal held that contributions to an approved Group Gratuity Scheme, even if exceeding 8.33% of employee salaries, are allowable deductions. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, it was found that the PCIT's view was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's ignorance of the law to be a bona fide reason. It held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is exempt under Section 10(10B), following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the entire books of accounts was not justified solely based on insufficient evidence for business promotion expenses. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the expenditure with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity to furnish complete evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal found that the actual cash deposits were Rs. 7,50,000/- and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding non-receipt of notices and the order. The matter was set aside to the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for proper service of notices.
The Tribunal noted that a prior order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) had determined the actual amount for which TDS was not deducted to be Rs. 1,23,505/-. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be restricted to this amount.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide. It also held that the entire amount of leave encashment received by the assessee is eligible for exemption based on a CBDT notification extending the benefit to non-government employees.
The Tribunal found that the bank statement, when examined, explained the source of the investment. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that a 100% disallowance was unsustainable and that estimating a profit element was a reasonable approach to balance revenue interests and justice. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that a 100% disallowance was unsustainable and that estimating a profit element was a reasonable approach to balance revenue interests and justice. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment of the deceased mother's income should have been made in the hands of the legal heirs in their capacity as legal heirs, not in their individual capacities. The AO's action of assessing the income in the assessee's individual capacity was a violation of law.
The Tribunal noted that an identical addition made in the hands of the developer was deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the corresponding addition in the hands of the purchaser (assessee) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the basis for reopening, an investigation report, had ceased to exist after the GST department accepted the assessee's reply. Furthermore, the assessee had provided substantial evidence for the purchases, which the AO failed to properly examine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of one day in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a bona fide belief regarding the limitation period and the date of service of the assessment order. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the basis for reopening, an investigation report, had ceased to exist after the GST department accepted the assessee's reply. Furthermore, the assessee had provided substantial evidence for the purchases, which the AO failed to properly examine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's serious illness (third-stage cancer and surgery). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal decided to admit the additional evidence, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the grounds on merits after considering the additional evidence and obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found the lands were agricultural at the time of sale, the agricultural income was sufficiently established, and the assessee lacked control over the company whose shares were sold, thus justifying capital gains treatment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that a 100% disallowance was unsustainable and that estimating a profit element was a reasonable approach to balance revenue interests and justice. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish requisite details to the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, the assessee requested a remand for de novo adjudication, promising full compliance. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed delayed before the CIT(A) and the assessee did not provide sufficient cause for condonation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the mere disallowance of a deduction, even if the assessee does not challenge the reassessment order, does not automatically amount to misreporting of income. Unless the Revenue proves deliberate misrepresentation or false particulars with cogent evidence, penalty for misreporting is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible 'surviving period' as calculated based on the assessee's reply date. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the existence of religious objects alongside charitable objects does not disqualify a trust for Section 80G approval. However, the issue of whether the trust exceeded the prescribed expenditure limit on religious activities required further verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) proceeded on an incorrect understanding that the assessment was framed under Section 144, whereas it was under Section 143(3). Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the assessee had duly offered the profit as STCG and paid taxes. The CIT(A) found that the assessee was a bona fide investor engaged in regular share trading.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the creditworthiness and source of unsecured loans, restoring the matter to the AO for verification. Grounds related to the cess claim were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision that the gains from the sale of the immovable property were STCG, not LTCG, because it was a business asset. Consequently, indexation benefits and disallowed expenses were not allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the expenditure pertained to a prior year and provided supporting documents. However, the assessee failed to furnish complete details before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the entire credit entries in the bank account could not be treated as income, as only profit arising from business is taxable. The CIT(A) was also incorrect in upholding the entire addition.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and ROC filings, to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The CIT(A) also relied on previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, following previous coordinate bench decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that leave encashment is also exempt. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the VRS compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, following the precedent set by coordinate benches. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the department failed to provide crucial seized documents and evidence regarding the sellers or co-purchasers, and the assessee demonstrated the differential amount was paid to a confirming party, not as on-money to the seller.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that leave encashment is also exempt. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as it was issued beyond the surviving period, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on this legal ground.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was due to a clerical mistake and that the assessee had bona fide intentions. It directed the AO to verify the claim and allow it if admissible, irrespective of any delay in the rectification application.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for full exemption under Section 10(10B). It also ruled that such claims can be entertained at the appellate stage even if not made in the original return, and that bona fide ignorance constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay.
The Tribunal held that the VRS compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, following the precedent set by coordinate benches. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for the quantum appeal and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment, subject to a deposit. The penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication and directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to make compliance, subject to payment of a cost. The CIT(A) is to then adjudicate the grounds on merits.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine, as investigations revealed the political party was used for accommodation entries and returned the donated funds after deducting a commission. Therefore, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the donation.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, the additions made for cash deposits, unsecured loan, and household expenses were deleted as the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and the additions were based on vague assumptions.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for the quantum appeal and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment, subject to a deposit. The penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted.