Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in reopening the assessment on an issue already dealt with in the first phase of assessment under Section 143(3) for the same assessment year. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on borrowed satisfaction and no fresh material was available, making the recorded reasons bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had declared the rent in the years to which it related and had paid taxes accordingly. The Tribunal found no deliberate attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, quashing the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation based on the documents provided, and a mere change of opinion by the PCIT does not make the order erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by using incorrect facts regarding the time gap between withdrawal and deposit. The Tribunal found that the source of the cash deposit was sufficiently explained and the addition made by the AO was not legally sustainable.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the lumpsum addition was unwarranted and against the spirit of law. The disallowance was made without specific findings and corroborative evidence, making it unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the payment made to the agent of the party was not in contravention of Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD. The agent's affidavit and the party's confirmation supported the assessee's claim that the payment was received through the agent.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely because additions have been made, especially when the disallowances are on an estimated basis without conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had maintained books of account.
The Tribunal held that a wrong claim of deduction, even if not sustainable, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely because additions have been made, especially when the disallowances are on an estimated basis without conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had maintained books of account.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's plea and the factual position before levying the penalty. The additions were made on an estimation basis.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash balance, supported by cash flow statements and previous year's closing balance, to cover the deposit. The AO's addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the verification by the revenue authorities was incomplete as they did not verify the company's account from which the payment was allegedly made. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(E) was incomplete. While the CIT(E) did verify the genuineness of the trust, there was a lack of verification regarding the activities related to the main object of the trust. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not conducted proper verification before passing the order. The assessee had submitted documents before the revenue authority, but no cross-verification was made to ascertain the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for making complete verification concerning the genuineness of the transaction and the activities of the trust in relation to its main object. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to admit and adjudicate on merits the evidences/explanations submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years prior to that, if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years prior to that, if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal in a summary manner under a mistaken belief, without proper appreciation of facts or affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years prior to that, if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) were prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment years prior to that, if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.