Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the AO acted on borrowed satisfaction and directions from the CIT(A), violating mandatory provisions of Section 147/148. The reasons recorded for reopening were not the AO's own, rendering the assessment orders invalid.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' were not speculative transactions as delivery of goods was duly executed. It also held that interest earned on FDRs, utilized for letters of credit in foreign transactions, was business income.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' were not speculative transactions as delivery of goods was properly executed. It also held that interest earned on FDRs, utilized for letters of credit in foreign transactions, was business income and not income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the 'high sea sales' were not speculative transactions as delivery of goods was duly executed. It also held that the interest earned on FDRs was related to the business and should be treated as business income, not income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' were not speculative transactions if goods were duly delivered, and that interest earned on FDRs used for business purposes (like obtaining letters of credit) should be treated as business income. The Tribunal also allowed netting of interest income against interest expenses.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' are not speculative transactions if goods are duly delivered, and interest earned on FDRs used for business purposes (like letters of credit) can be considered business income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee withdrew its grounds related to 'high sea sales'.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' were not speculative transactions if delivery of goods was executed. It also held that interest earned on FDRs, utilized for business purposes like letters of credit, should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' were not speculative transactions as delivery of goods was duly executed. It also held that interest earned on FDRs, utilized for letters of credit in foreign transactions, was business income and not income from other sources.
The ITAT quashed the additions made under Section 153A, stating that the Assessing Officer did not recognize any incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO acted on borrowed satisfaction and directions from the CIT(A), violating mandatory provisions of Section 147/148. The reasons recorded for reopening were not the AO's own, rendering the assessment orders invalid.
The Tribunal held that the findings of the CIT(A) were perverse to the facts on record. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and deleted the additions confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration without considering the trust deed, previous assessment orders accepting its charitable nature, and the renunciation of shares by beneficiaries. The payment of salary to a full-time trustee was also deemed not to violate Section 13.
The ITAT quashed the additions made under Section 153A, stating that the Assessing Officer did not recognize any incriminating material related to the assessment found during the search. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The ITAT quashed the additions made under Section 153A, stating that the Assessing Officer did not recognize any incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' were not speculative transactions if goods were duly delivered, and that interest earned on FDRs used for business purposes (like Letters of Credit) should be considered business income. The Tribunal also allowed netting of interest income against interest expenses.
The Tribunal held that 'high sea sales' are not speculative if goods are duly delivered, and interest earned on FDRs used for business purposes (like Letters of Credit) is business income. Therefore, the revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to submit documents. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was unsustainable as it was based on an audit objection without proper investigation and failed to consider the assessee's specific manufacturing process for brown rice export. The Tribunal relied on a previous ITAT ruling emphasizing natural justice and proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed his return under Section 44AD, which presumes profits and gains, thus not requiring explanation of expenses. The source of payments was reflected in the bank statement and explained before the appellate authority.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to submit documents. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity for hearing.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the reassessment order was in their favour, making the appeal a revenue-neutral exercise. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the ex parte nature of the assessment and appeal proceedings, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was a regular taxpayer who had declared her income under the old PAN. The issue of dual PANs was not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found a fundamental error in the impugned order as the CIT(E) rejected the application under Section 12AA instead of Section 10(23C)(vi) as requested. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on the correct grounds, considering all evidence and the issue of independent PAN.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case and that no proper cross-verification was done by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal found a fundamental error in the impugned order as the CIT(E) rejected the application under Section 12AA instead of Section 10(23C)(vi) as requested. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on the correct grounds, considering all evidence and the issue of independent PAN.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been granted adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing one more opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E was beyond the scope of Section 200A prior to the amendment on 01.06.2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer arbitrarily calculated the net profit at 15% on contractual receipts and that the assessee was denied an opportunity to present its case. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while corpus donations are permissible without Section 12AA registration if gross receipts are below Rs. 1 crore, the unverified nature of the donations was the primary issue. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further verification of the corpus donation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed and bank statements, to prove that the entire payment was made through banking channels. The addition made by the AO was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a cogent and satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was not a gratuitous advance but a business transaction for commercial expediency, as the directors' personal assets were involved for the company's benefit. Therefore, it did not fall under the purview of Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the transaction was not a gratuitous advance but a business transaction for commercial expediency, as the directors' personal assets were involved for the company's benefit. Therefore, it did not fall under the purview of Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the transaction was not a gratuitous advance but a business transaction for commercial expediency, as the directors' personal assets were involved for the company's benefit. Therefore, it did not fall under the purview of Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the transaction was not a gratuitous advance but a business transaction for commercial expediency, as the directors' personal assets were involved for the company's benefit. Therefore, it did not fall under the purview of Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating the issues on merits. The dismissal violated the principles of natural justice, especially in the absence of substantiated proof of notice service.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating the issues on merits. The dismissal violated the principles of natural justice, especially in the absence of substantiated proof of notice service.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case before the revenue authorities. Assessments were made based on loose papers and the CBI report without considering the assessee's books of accounts, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case before the revenue authorities. Assessments were made based on loose papers and the CBI report without considering the assessee's books of accounts, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case before the revenue authorities. Assessments were made based on loose papers and the CBI report without considering the assessee's books of accounts, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years where the related assessment orders were already quashed. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found no reasonable cause for non-compliance and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case before the revenue authorities. Assessments were made based on loose papers and the CBI report without considering the assessee's books of accounts, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case before the revenue authorities. Assessments were made based on loose papers and the CBI report without considering the assessee's books of accounts, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case before the revenue authorities. Assessments were made based on loose papers and the CBI report without considering the assessee's books of accounts, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating the issues on merits. The dismissal violated the principles of natural justice, especially in the absence of substantiated proof of notice service.
The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years where the related assessment orders were already quashed. For other assessment years, the Tribunal found no reasonable cause for non-compliance and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The lower authorities failed to properly address the assessee's claim of earning only commission.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without addressing the assessee's grounds and contentions. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted in violation of principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without appreciating the merits and evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.