Loading ITAT cases…
32 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that galvanisation constitutes 'manufacture' and allowed the deduction under Section 80IB. It also admitted the additional ground regarding interest subsidy being a capital receipt, directing the AO to recompute business income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had granted sufficient opportunities, the dismissal order was not sustainable as it did not adjudicate the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized the requirement of a speaking order that addresses the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of director's salary, finding the allocation to be justified and consistent with past practice. The disallowance of car repair expenses was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemptions) had subsequently granted approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) for AY 2014-15 onwards. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, considering the conditions of the newly granted approval.
The Tribunal held that galvanisation constitutes 'manufacture' and allowed the deduction under Section 80IB. It also admitted the additional ground regarding interest subsidy being a capital receipt, directing the AO to recompute business income accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the addition of Rs. 30,35,000/- was made without verifying the bank account, as no such deposit was found. The addition of Rs. 31,25,000/- was also deleted as it was explained by the sale of land by the assessee's husband, with supporting documentation and consideration already accounted for in the husband's assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to appear but, considering the CIT(A) had not decided on merits, remanded the case back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in future proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and lacked details about notice issuance. It was held that the principle of natural justice was denied by not affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that there was no sufficient basis or material to assess the income of Rs. 15 lacs in the hands of the assessee for the relevant year. The corroborative material found was not dated and did not establish that the alleged advance continued to be outstanding in the relevant year.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made arbitrarily without confronting the assessee with material or justification. The AO failed to establish that the expenses were not properly vouched or that the commission paid was excessive.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the transaction was between family members and the advance and its return were verifiable through bank statements and confirmation letters.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46 by admitting fresh evidence, as the Assessing Officer had opportunities to examine the material and failed to provide a remand report. The CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delayed audit, based on counsel's advice, lacked factual basis and demonstrated laches. However, in the peculiar facts and considering the penalty amount, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee the benefit of doubt.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the registration application without providing a final opportunity to the assessee to establish its case contravened the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payments did not fall under the exceptions of Rule 6DD and confirmed the disallowance under Section 40A(3). The Tribunal also confirmed an addition under Section 68 for unexplained credits, finding the creditor's capacity and genuineness unproved.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's conduct, including accepting the register and requesting addition on a peak basis, indicated ownership.
The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under Section 234B(3) is a debatable issue with conflicting views from different courts. Therefore, it cannot be considered a mistake apparent from the record that is rectifiable under Section 154.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee had claimed deduction only on the net income after considering the loss. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's cash flow statement was not entirely unsubstantiated, but the source of Rs. 3.50 lacs received from his wife remained unexplained. Therefore, the addition was restricted.
The Tribunal found that both the assessee and the Revenue authorities had not properly presented and examined the facts. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering all relevant material and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without recording reasons and without calling for a remand report from the AO. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to follow the procedure under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the explanation plausible and in the interest of justice. The Tribunal further decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the explanation plausible and in the interest of justice. The Tribunal further decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) was not valid as it was not based on the grounds of activities being non-genuine or not in accordance with objects. The Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous due to the restoration of registration.
The Tribunal found that there was no independent adjudication on merits by the CIT(A) as the assessment record and submitted documents were not properly considered. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) was not valid as it was not based on the grounds of activities being non-genuine or not in accordance with objects. The Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous due to the restoration of registration.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) was not valid as it was not based on the grounds of activities being non-genuine or not in accordance with objects. The Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous due to the restoration of registration.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) was not valid as it was not based on the grounds of activities being non-genuine or not in accordance with objects. The Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous due to the restoration of registration.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) was not valid as it was not based on the grounds of activities being non-genuine or not in accordance with objects. The Revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous due to the restoration of registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application under Section 154 for rectification was maintainable, despite previous considerations by the AO and CIT(A). The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-trust satisfies the conditions for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the Sutlej Public Senior Secondary School (SPSSS) unequivocally exists solely for educational purposes, evidenced by its affiliation with CBSE, its student enrollment, and the provision of facilities. The fact that the trust deed had other objects was not a disqualifier, as the primary activity was education, and the trust's motto also supported this. Concerning the second issue, the Tribunal found no adverse impact on the 'not for profit' condition due to family management. It noted that the beneficiaries of the trust were not restricted to the family, and the family members had provided interest-free funds and gifted land. The operating statements showed reasonable profit rates. However, the Tribunal stipulated that the funds of the educational institution should not be utilized by the trust for any other non-educational object. This condition, along with others like separate maintenance and audit of school accounts, could be imposed by the competent authority while granting approval. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(E)'s findings and directed the grant of approval.
The Tribunal held that while Section 271(1B) deems satisfaction for penalty initiation if the assessment order directs it, the satisfaction must still be discernible from the order. However, the appeal was partly allowed on other grounds not detailed here.