Loading ITAT cases…
321 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Firstly, several appeals and cross-objections (IT(SS)A No. 72/Ahd/2024, CO No. 44/Ahd/2024, and CO Nos. 33 to 35/Ahd/2024) were dismissed as not pressed. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 3,54,73,603/- for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on a technical ground related to the validity of the notice under section 143(2). However, the Tribunal found that a substantive adjudication on merits was warranted, especially since a similar issue in the assessee's father's case had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after considering all relevant material and submissions. The Tribunal explicitly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition/dispute. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes on this issue. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the grounds raised by SS Realty concerning the validity of the Section 153A assessment, Section 153C, Section 153D, or the estimation of profit, as the operative part of the order only details the disposal of specific appeal numbers and does not elaborate on the findings for all grounds raised by SS Realty.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A cannot be invoked when cash deposits are duly recorded in the books of accounts and the income from sales has already been offered to tax. The Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of accounts or disputed the sales, purchases, or stock position.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not granted sufficient time to produce evidence during assessment and that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence. The matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was restored to the AO for denovo adjudication after verifying the assessee's claims regarding business turnover, VAT records, and interbank transfers.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to pursue the appeal and had requested permission to withdraw it. Considering the assessee's request, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to apply the peak credit theory, acknowledging the fund circulation evident from bank statements and cash book. However, it provided further directions for calculating the final addition, including credit for opening balance and net agricultural receipts.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed the prescribed procedure under Section 148A. It further held that the addition made by the AO was based on suspicion and surmises, not on concrete evidence, and therefore deleted the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost, noting that the issues deserved consideration on merits. The Tribunal set aside the assessment on business income and restored it to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not specifically address the assessee's submissions and legal contentions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the additions and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing both parties to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as the cash withdrawals by the father-in-law were sufficient to cover the amounts in question. The Tribunal directed that the benefit of telescoping be granted, effectively deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and account confirmations, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The repayment of advances within the same month meant they did not qualify for addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case was valid as the AO had applied his mind. However, for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16, the matter of additions related to a loan and its repayment was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case was valid as the AO had applied his mind. However, for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16, the matter of additions related to a loan and its repayment was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case was valid as the AO had applied his mind. However, for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16, the matter of additions related to a loan and its repayment was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, noting that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the merits. The Tribunal found it necessary to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that for an addition under Section 68, the sum must be found credited in the assessee's books. Since the assessee denied the transactions and provided supporting documents, and the AO failed to establish the credit entry in the assessee's books, the addition was not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepted the claim for exemption under Section 10(10B) for the BSNL VRS compensation, and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the taxable income and grant refunds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) and also granted exemption for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) based on a High Court judgment. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) and also granted exemption for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) based on a High Court judgment. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not make any addition on the issues for which the case was reopened (cash and time deposits), no other addition could be made. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding that the Assessing Officer's comparison was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the FDR balances represented funds accumulated over many years, not just the period under consideration, and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal noted that subsequent orders from the CPC allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of remuneration to partners. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that if the primary addition on which the case was reopened is deleted, any other additions made on different grounds cannot survive. Therefore, the addition on STCG on shops, which was not the basis for reopening, was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that subsequent orders from the CPC allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of remuneration to partners. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee had become infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 was exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The AO was directed to recompute the taxable income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, it was found that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271D for assessment orders passed before April 1, 2025.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the case for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's response to multiple notices and appearance in hearings indicated substantial compliance. Failure to respond to only two notices, especially when the assessee claimed to be out of town, did not warrant the penalty, and Section 273B could be applied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepted the claim for exemption under Section 10(10B) for the BSNL VRS compensation, and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the taxable income and grant refunds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 was exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The AO was directed to recompute the taxable income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following a coordinate bench's decision, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that there was no material to substantiate that the cash deposits in the partner's account pertained to the assessee firm. Furthermore, the department had accepted the cash deposit as explained in the partner's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was acceptable, considering her status as a senior citizen and widow, supported by bank transactions and confirmations from her sons. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not a genuine contribution eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The investigation material and the modus operandi of the recipient political party demonstrated that the donation was an accommodation entry.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had sent notices to an incorrect email address, leading to the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 54 as the purchased flats were incomplete and the conditions for claiming the deduction were not fulfilled. The initiation of penalty proceedings was consequential and thus dismissed.