Loading ITAT cases…
321 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to file an application under Section 119(2)(b) for permission to file a revised return. This application should be sympathetically considered by the Principal CIT, allowing the assessee to claim the Section 80C deduction in the revised return.
The Tribunal held that while the AO was correct in rejecting the books of accounts, he was not entirely correct in disallowing all expenses related to commission income. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the commission income by allowing 50% of the receipt as per Section 44ADA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the unexplained cash addition, finding it relatable to the assessee's business income. The protective addition was also confirmed as deleted. However, the addition for joint account credits was restored to the AO for fresh examination due to a procedural issue.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 14.50 crores for AY 2009-10 as it was not an advance but income. However, a separate addition of Rs. 1 crore for the same year was deleted as it led to double addition.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 14.50 crores for AY 2009-10 as it was not an advance but income. However, a separate addition of Rs. 1 crore for the same year was deleted as it led to double addition.
The Tribunal held that while the amount was not exempt under Section 10(2A), it was not taxable in the hands of the partner. Following Supreme Court precedents, such surplus from revaluation of assets is taxable in the hands of the partnership firm under Section 45(4).
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order in the name of a deceased assessee, who expired during proceedings, is an irregularity, not an illegality. The matter was restored to the AO to bring the legal representative on record and reframe the assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied was subsequently deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that filing a second appeal against the same assessment order after the first appeal was decided is not permissible under the Act. The assessee's remedy for the non-disposal of the rectification application would have been a writ petition, not a fresh appeal.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2025-26, Section 87A did not contain an express exclusion for STCG, and the rebate should be allowed. Reliance on a CBDT circular to curtail a statutory benefit was deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Both parties were directed to fulfill their respective obligations, with the assessees to provide all necessary documents and the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.