Loading ITAT cases…
31 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to improper service of the notice under Section 148. The notice was not served at the address provided by the assessee in her return of income, which is the legally recognized address for service.
The Tribunal acknowledged that its previous order of 7% net profit rate was a mistake apparent from the record, as it failed to consider the binding direction of the Jurisdictional High Court. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-computation of income as per the High Court's directions.
The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause, as the assessee, a government undertaking, required permission from its head office which was not received promptly. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause, as the assessee, a government undertaking, required permission from its head office which was not received promptly. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic. The penalty order was also set aside as consequential.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was restored by a coordinate bench, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. For the expenses disallowance, the matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was restored by a coordinate bench, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. For the expenses disallowance, the matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was restored by a coordinate bench, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. For the expenses disallowance, the matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was restored by a coordinate bench, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. For the expenses disallowance, the matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal acknowledged that its previous order of 7% net profit rate was a mistake apparent from the record, as it failed to consider the binding direction of the Jurisdictional High Court. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-computation of income as per the High Court's directions.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's registration under Section 12AA was restored by a coordinate bench, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect. For the expenses disallowance, the matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of addition related to rent paid to co-owners below the TDS threshold and deleted the disallowance of advertisement expenses. However, the issue of provision for gratuity and leave salary was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further adjudication in light of a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that since the AO rejected the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3), disallowances under Section 40A(3) became redundant. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to assess net profit at 9% of turnover, considering the consistency in business and past ITAT rulings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed before the trust obtained registration under Section 12AA. However, it found that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) which was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to verify the assessee's contention that 85% of funds were spent. The AO was instructed to compute the tax liability accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not properly verified the contradictory facts between the audit reports and the assessee's claims. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear for the hearing and did not rectify the defects in the appeal filing. The defects included incorrect respondent name, improper form, missing original order copy, and unsigned forms.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her initial burden by producing lenders with affidavits and statements on oath. The AO and CIT(A) failed to disprove the genuineness of the advances, which were explained as short-term loans from friends and relatives for a specific purpose.
The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause, as the assessee, a government undertaking, required permission from its head office which was not received promptly. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, stating that interest earned on FDRs, even if used for availing credit facilities, does not have a direct nexus with the export business to be considered business income for Section 80HHC deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in interpreting the trust's objects in a fractured manner. The Tribunal found that the trust's objectives, when read in their entirety, were for the welfare of the general public, irrespective of religion.
The Tribunal held that the second revision order under Section 263 was void ab initio. It reasoned that Section 263 cannot be invoked for a second time on identical issues after a first revision order has already been passed and acted upon.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable for adding sundry debtors or advances to growers. The addition of Rs. 5,03,336/- was considered erroneous and liable to be dismissed, while the rest of the addition was already deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found a lack of proper inquiry and verification by the AO regarding the twin PANs and the credit card payment. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not adequately verified the banking transactions. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the under-reporting of income due to her age, ailments, and the death of her son who previously managed her tax affairs. The Tribunal found no malafide intention to evade tax.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed rectification applications under Section 154 within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a decision on merits, considering the documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's cause for delay to be reasonable and bonafide. The Tribunal found the Pr. CIT's order to be mechanical and arbitrary due to violation of natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was valid as the audit report indicated a delay in payment of employee contributions, which contravened section 36(1)(va). This aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic. The penalty order was also set aside as consequential.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable for adding sundry debtors or advances to growers. The addition of Rs. 5,03,336/- was considered erroneous and liable to be dismissed, while the rest of the addition was already deleted by the CIT(A).