Loading ITAT cases…
121 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that interest paid on a housing loan is not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of an asset, nor is it a cost of acquisition or improvement. Such interest is deductible under Section 24 against rental income.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding that the relief granted was based on proper evidence, agreements, and the principle of avoiding double taxation. The revenue's grounds of appeal were not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications without proper service of notices and adequate opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications without proper service of notices and adequate opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of funds by providing the brother's confirmation and bank statements showing withdrawals. The addition was based on assumptions and conjectures by the lower authorities and could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications without proper service of notices and adequate opportunity to be heard violated principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should also be restored back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the quantum appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the evidence provided, including bank statements and a fund flow statement, which explained the source of the cash deposit. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be perverse.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound by the directions of the CIT in the order passed under Section 264. Therefore, the AO's action of applying the 12.5% net profit rate was not considered infirm.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals, considering their NRI status and the circumstances. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to be liberally construed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals, considering their NRI status and the circumstances. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to be liberally construed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to submit documents and evidence before the CIT(A) due to a consultant's oversight. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals, considering their NRI status and the circumstances. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to be liberally construed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to Rs. 22,48,000/-. The Tribunal found that while the sale deeds amounted to Rs. 1,59,52,000/-, the assessee failed to adequately explain the remaining cash deposits, even considering the alleged agreements to sell.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was infirm and perverse. It found that the compensation was paid after the effective date of the RFCTLARR Act, making it applicable, and thus the exemption claim was valid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals, considering their NRI status and the circumstances. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to be liberally construed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the legal heir's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the non-communication of reasons for reopening the assessment, despite the assessee's written request, renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. This failure deprives the assessee of their right to object to the reopening.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and the appeal was not maintainable in its current form. The proceedings were abated to allow legal heirs to be brought on record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity of hearing and without appreciating the facts on merits. The matter was therefore remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was bad in law due to the absence of incriminating documents found at the searched premises relating to the assessee. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity of hearing and without appreciating the facts on merits. The matter was therefore remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to remove the defects in the appeal, including the non-filing of crucial orders. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded ex parte and dismissed the appeal as defective.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed the order ex-parte and that no notices were served on the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an order under section 143(3) does not nullify an intimation under section 143(1) for the same assessment year, and each proceeding is independent. The disallowance for delayed ESI and EPF payments was upheld based on settled law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the assessee's turnover was within the limit for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Relying on its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal held that Section 13 provisions govern Sections 11 and 12, not Section 10, and the AO/CIT(A) did not conclusively prove violations.
The Tribunal found that the AO's calculation of NP at 2% lacked a proper basis and did not consider the assessee's past history or comparable businesses. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's books were not properly represented before the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal decided to abate the appeal proceedings until the disposal of the criminal complaint by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The assessee has the right to revive the appeal upon the court's decision, while the department can realize its demand from the assessee's assets.
The Tribunal decided to abate the appellate proceedings until a new council is appointed by the resolution professional. The department was granted the right to realize its demand from the assets of the company.
The Tribunal decided to abate the appellate proceedings until a new council is appointed by the resolution professional. The department was granted the right to realize its demand from the assets of the company.
The Tribunal decided to abate the appellate proceedings until a new council is appointed by the resolution professional. The department was granted the right to realize its demand from the assets of the appellant company.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) was not raised before the lower authorities. However, since it was raised as a fresh legal issue before the Tribunal, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed the order ex-parte and that no notices were served on the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and the legal heirs could not be brought on record despite directions. The appeal was abated until the legal heirs are substituted, with a right to revive.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee should be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without jurisdiction as the assessee's premises were searched, making Section 153A the relevant provision. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, particularly concerning the sale proceeds of agricultural land and alleged "on money" receipts. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is to examine the issue in light of a claimed decision by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without jurisdiction as the assessee's premises were searched, making Section 153A the relevant provision. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal decided to abate the appeal proceedings until a council is appointed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The assessee has the right to revive the appeals once the NCLT council is appointed to represent them.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without jurisdiction as the assessee's premises were searched, making Section 153A the relevant provision. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal decided to abate the appeal proceedings until a council is appointed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The assessee has the right to revive the appeals once the NCLT council is appointed to represent them.
The Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the appeals until the resolution of the matter by the NCLT. The assessee is permitted to revive the appeals upon resolution, and the department retains the right to recover the demand.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without jurisdiction as the assessee's premises were searched, making Section 153A the relevant provision. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty levied were quashed.
The Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the appeals until the resolution of the matter by the NCLT. The assessee is permitted to revive the appeals upon resolution, and the department retains the right to recover the demand.
The Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the appeals until the resolution of the matter by the NCLT. The assessee is permitted to revive the appeals upon resolution, and the department retains the right to recover the demand.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision for AY 2002-03, which was under appeal before the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the present appeals until the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a previous co-ordinate bench decision for AY 2002-03, which was under appeal before the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to abate the proceedings in the present appeals until the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the matter was sub judice in the civil court and had not yet reached a decision. Consequently, the appeal proceedings were abated.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without jurisdiction as the assessee's premises were searched, making Section 153A the relevant provision. Consequently, the assessment and the penalty levied were quashed.