Loading ITAT cases…
112 tribunal orders from the Allahabad bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 112 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and unreasoned order, merely accepting the assessee's submissions without independent verification. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the property was purchased by the partnership firm, and the assessee signed as an authorized signatory. Since the Assessing Officer did not properly verify the source of funds from the firm's records, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the pandemic. It held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking as it dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits.
The Tribunal held that following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, depreciation is not separately allowable when the net profit is estimated after rejecting the books of accounts. CBDT circulars do not override High Court judgments.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 21,82,000 on account of cash deposited in bank accounts, the Tribunal noted that the credit of Rs. 3,00,000 deposited on 12.07.2008 was already allowed while deciding ground of appeal No. 7. The Tribunal found that the credit of cash deposited on 06.08.2008 and 17.10.2008 in the same bank account was available to the appellant up to an amount of Rs. (21,82,000 - 3,00,000) = Rs. 18,82,000. The Tribunal held that the entire balance amount of investment in DLF Commercial Complex and M/s Rohtas Project Ltd amounting to Rs. 16,00,484, out of cash deposited in the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd account of the appellant, is treated as explained, and no addition is called for on this account. Consequently, the addition on account of unexplained investment in DLF Commercial Complex and M/s Rohtas Project Ltd made by the AO was reduced from Rs. 7,50,000 to Rs. 1,76,800, granting the appellant relief of Rs. 5,73,200. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the rebate expenses, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence to conclusively determine their nature and compliance with TDS provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the rebate expenses, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence to conclusively determine their nature and compliance with TDS provisions.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the loss on sale of vehicles as the assessee conceded it was not legally tenable. For the rent paid to the director, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not comply with principles of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the rebate expenses, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence to conclusively determine their nature and compliance with TDS provisions.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for cooperative banks requires a banking license from the RBI, and the retrospective effect of such a license needs to be examined. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on this issue and to verify details for the second limb of the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) for cooperative banks requires a banking license from the RBI, and the retrospective effect of such a license needs to be examined. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on this issue and to verify details for the second limb of the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of sale of prospectus, finding the assessee failed to discharge its onus. However, it allowed the deduction for expenditure where TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Calcutta Export Company.
The Tribunal held that the land in question is within 8 km of municipal limits and thus a capital asset. It also held Section 50C applicable but remanded the matter to the AO for referring the property to the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal held that it should be restricted to the profit element of the alleged out-of-books sales, not the entire sale proceeds, and based on the average sale price recorded in the assessee's books.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not provide elaborate reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim that the jewellery was 'Stridhan' acquired at the time of her marriage. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh determination with directions to pass reasoned orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without a remand report and ignoring the fact that the assessee admitted to excess stock. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without a remand report and ignoring the fact that the assessee admitted to excess stock. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 132B regarding adjustment of seized cash was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Interest under Section 234A was upheld due to the late filing of the return, but the AO was directed to recompute interest under Section 234B considering adjustments for taxes paid and the date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not invalid due to limitation as no return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice. However, it found that the Assessing Officer erred by not referring the property valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2) when the assessee objected to the deemed consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic and unreasoned orders, accepting contentions without detailed analysis and failing to obtain the AO's comments on additional evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic and unreasoned orders, accepting contentions without detailed analysis and failing to obtain the AO's comments on additional evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is required to adjudicate appeals on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given a brief period to produce all necessary details and evidence. Considering a similar case of the co-owner being remanded, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise the issue of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction before the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal did not express any view on the merits of the jurisdictional issue or other grounds raised.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective and proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(E) passed the revision order. Therefore, the impugned revision order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were not speaking orders as they merely confirmed the Assessing Officer's additions without discussing the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's rejection of books of accounts did not automatically warrant an addition if the declared profit was better than the past history. The AO's estimation of income at 7% was deemed arbitrary and unjustified due to the lack of a proper basis and the fact that the assessee's declared profit was higher than the previous year.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest, being consequential to the Section 68 additions, could not be decided until those earlier years' issues were adjudicated. Similarly, the security deposit issue was also set aside for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) due to lack of verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions based solely on a low GP rate if the books of account are not found to be defective. Regarding cash payments, the Tribunal noted that the third proviso to Section 40A(3) allows a higher limit of Rs. 35,000 for payments to transport operators, and since none of the payments exceeded this limit, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that remuneration paid to partners, if within the limits prescribed by Section 40(b)(v) and duly credited in their accounts, is allowable even if there are minor discrepancies in partner statements. However, advertisement expenses incurred by a firm that has let out its theatre are not considered wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwash Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwash Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice. Furthermore, levying penalty on both grounds without a clear finding renders the order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of business income was wrongly classified under Section 69 and should be treated as business income. The addition for unexplained investment in property was deleted as the assessee explained the source. The issue of unexplained bank deposits was remanded for verification, and the deduction under Section 80TTA was to be allowed if eligible.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on figures considered by the AO in its remand report, thus the Revenue's grievance was not substantiated. For the assessee's appeals, certain issues were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on figures considered by the AO in its remand report, thus the Revenue's grievance was not substantiated. For the assessee's appeals, certain issues were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided some evidence and explained the delay in submitting complete confirmations due to time constraints. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT had not specifically requested certain documentary evidence for the activities.