Loading ITAT cases…
325 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. On the first issue, the Tribunal affirmed the settled legal proposition that recording of a satisfaction note is a prerequisite for initiating assessment proceedings under Section 153C. Citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Virat Alloys (P.) Ltd. vs. Officer of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears, along with CBDT Circular No. 24/2015, the Tribunal found that no satisfaction note was recorded for AY 2018-19, rendering the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C invalid. On the second issue, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings on merits. The CIT(A) had noted that the jottings were mere estimates by the appellant's director of probable collections by the developer, and the AO had not brought forth any corroborative evidence to establish that these amounts represented cash payments to the appellant. The CIT(A) had also considered the director's statement under Section 132(4) and other factors, concluding that the addition was improper and illogical. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s decision on both the legal and merits aspects.
The Tribunal restored both the issue of unexplained cash credit and the disallowance of travelling expenses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the need for further verification of purchases, sales, and supporting documents.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal and the failure to claim exemption in the original return were due to lack of awareness of legal provisions. Following various ITAT precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to entertain the exemption claim solely because it was not made in the original return. Following consistent precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the full exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal and the failure to claim exemption in the original return were due to lack of awareness of legal provisions. Following various ITAT precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to entertain the exemption claim solely because it was not made in the original return. Following consistent precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the full exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in directing the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271AAD, as this power is not vested with the PCIT under Section 263. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court and ITAT precedents.
The Third Member, in his opinion, decided all three referred issues in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Accountant Member had directed the AO to verify the assessee's percentage of ownership in Bungalow No. 76 and reduce the 'on-money' addition proportionately, setting aside the matter to the AO for this limited purpose. The Judicial Member had decided all three issues in favour of the assessee. The final order, in conformity with the majority decision (Accountant Member and Third Member), held that the legal grounds and issues on merits were decided in favour of the Revenue. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's percentage of ownership in Bungalow No. 76, as per the Accountant Member's directions. The addition was to be reduced proportionately based on this verification. The ratio is that while procedural delays in satisfaction recording and denial of cross-examination might be grounds for vitiation, the majority decision ultimately favored the Revenue on these points, with the final outcome dependent on a factual verification regarding ownership share.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (bank statement) and set aside the assessment order. The AO was directed to re-examine the cash deposits in light of the new evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition. It found that the AO failed to prove the purchases and cash sales to be non-genuine, and the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing all relevant documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant materials.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was substantially financed by the government and was entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). The audited accounts also explained the source of cash deposits as tuition fees, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,49,000/-. The assessee had provided affidavits from the loan giver and his father, acknowledging the payments and explaining their sources.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) and directing the AO to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 10(10AA) after verification.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had already ruled that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS due to compliance with Section 194C(6), the corresponding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable and should be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, considering the substantial issues that remained to be examined. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done with the liberty for the parties to refile the appeals before the appropriate Bench with condonation of delay if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the receipt of Rs. 55 Lakhs was from a family property partition and not 'income'. Relying on judicial precedents, it was established that a family partition is not a transfer and thus not taxable as income.
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 Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. ABC Papers Ltd., the Delhi Benches have the jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. Therefore, the appeals and cross-objections filed before the Ahmedabad Benches were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that similar reassessments in the cases of other individuals named in the same seized material did not result in additions. The Tribunal found no change in the factual matrix to warrant a contrary decision for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the amounts in the seized diaries were already accounted for and confirmed in the hands of the assessee's father, Shri Prakash Babulal Sanghvi, no separate addition was warranted in the assessee's case. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the amounts in the seized diaries were already accounted for and confirmed in the hands of the assessee's father, Shri Prakash Babulal Sanghvi, no separate addition was warranted in the assessee's case. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to give relief to the assessee as per the rectification orders passed by the CPC.
The Tribunal held that since the amounts in the seized diaries were already accounted for and confirmed in the hands of the assessee's father, Shri Prakash Babulal Sanghvi, no separate addition was warranted in the assessee's case. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO.
The Tribunal held that since the amounts in the seized diaries were already accounted for and confirmed in the hands of the assessee's father, Shri Prakash Babulal Sanghvi, no separate addition was warranted in the assessee's case. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, considering the substantial issues that remained to be examined. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals in several cases, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. In one instance, a penalty was set aside as the quantum addition on which it was based was already set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals in several cases, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. In one instance, a penalty was set aside as the quantum addition on which it was based was already set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, considering the substantial issues that remained to be examined. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals in several cases, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. In one instance, a penalty was set aside as the quantum addition on which it was based was already set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals in several cases, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. In one instance, a penalty was set aside as the quantum addition on which it was based was already set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) and directing the AO to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 10(10AA) after verification.
The Tribunal held that, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. ABC Papers Ltd., the Delhi Benches have the jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. Therefore, the appeals and cross-objections filed before the Ahmedabad Benches were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done with the liberty for the parties to refile the appeals before the appropriate Bench with condonation of delay if necessary.
The Tribunal held that, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. ABC Papers Ltd., the Delhi Benches have the jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. Therefore, the appeals and cross-objections filed before the Ahmedabad Benches were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals in several cases, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. In one instance, a penalty was set aside as the quantum addition on which it was based was already set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals in several cases, directing the CIT(A) to adjudicate the matters on merits. In one instance, a penalty was set aside as the quantum addition on which it was based was already set aside.
The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that unsold units forming part of a builder's stock-in-trade are occupied for business purposes and thus excluded from Section 22 of the Act. The addition made by the AO was not sustained due to the ad-hoc and unverified nature of the computation.