Loading ITAT cases…
222 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the AO's order, which allowed the deduction based on binding judicial precedents from the jurisdictional High Court, could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was caused by genuine reasons including the company's financial situation, staff shortage, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it for non-prosecution. The matter of carry-forward of deficit requires verification by the AO, considering Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal found that there was an inadvertent error in Form 10B regarding the total income. It held that such an error should not deny the benefit of accumulation. The matter was restored to the AO for verification and to grant the benefit.
The Tribunal held that while Section 234E was introduced in 2012, it became operational only from 01.06.2015 after the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c). Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the levy of late fee prior to 01.06.2015 was deemed to be without authority of law.
The Tribunal granted the withdrawal request as the Revenue's DR raised no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the procedural requirement of filing Form 10-IE is directory and not mandatory. The assessee's intention to be taxed under the old regime was clear from filing the return and paying tax accordingly. Therefore, the CPC's action of recomputing tax under the new regime was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the 91-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age, lack of malafide intention, and the principles of substantial justice over technicality. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the cash deposit was part of the assessee's regular business receipts and sales turnover, and thus, could not be added as unexplained income. The AO's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on third-party information without independent inquiry and failed to demonstrate why only a specific portion of the purchases was bogus. The GST authority's observation only pertained to reversal of input tax credit due to delayed payment, not the genuineness of purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days, finding it to be technical in nature and caused by jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer and remitted the matter back for de-novo assessment, directing the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the activity, not the quantum of expenditure, is relevant for registration. The CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely on the basis of not incurring substantial expenditure, especially since the trust was at an inception stage.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide cogent reasons for classifying the trust as religious and that the trust deed and activities indicated charitable purposes. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide cogent reasons for classifying the trust as religious and that the trust deed and activities indicated charitable purposes. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on note counting and weighing machines based on consistency. The issue of penalty paid to RBI was remanded to the AO for verification of its nature. The disallowance of software expenses was also restored to the AO for further examination. The issue of recovery of bad debts was also remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the activity, not the quantum of expenditure, is relevant for registration. The CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely on the basis of not incurring substantial expenditure, especially since the trust was at an inception stage.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the matter should be decided on merits and restored significant grounds back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that taxing the same income in the hands of both the assessee and her husband would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal noted that the AO incorrectly treated the gain as short-term capital gain when it should have been long-term.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal back to the AO for fresh consideration, along with the penalty appeal which was consequential to the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act, as the Form 10CCB was available before processing the return. However, since the eligibility and quantum were not examined by lower authorities, the issue is remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a personal hearing despite a request. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the jurisdictional AO to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and decide the case afresh.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CPC incorrectly processed the return under the new regime despite the assessee's clear indication otherwise. The issue was remitted back to the JAO for reconsideration and to grant benefits under the old tax regime after verification and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal back to the AO for fresh consideration, along with the penalty appeal which was consequential to the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, held that the term deposits and salary income were explained by the assessee's salary and past savings, and deleted the addition under Section 69A. However, since the assessee did not file a return, the AO was directed to compute the tax liability.
The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted a letter confirming the withdrawal of appeals. The Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that a claim for deduction under Section 80P can only be allowed if the return of income is filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1), especially after the amendment by the Finance Act 2018. Belatedly filed returns, even if accepted for other purposes, cannot be used to claim this deduction.
The Tribunal held that the first appeal was not maintainable as filed and dismissed it. For the other two appeals, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a claim for deduction under Section 80P can only be allowed if the return of income is filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1), especially after the amendment by the Finance Act 2018. Belatedly filed returns, even if accepted for other purposes, cannot be used to claim this deduction.
The Tribunal held that the first appeal was not maintainable as filed and dismissed it. For the other two appeals, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had submitted expenditure details during the appeal proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order for denovo adjudication by the AO, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted a letter confirming the withdrawal of appeals. The Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowed capital for the construction of property is eligible for deduction under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, irrespective of whether the loan was for business or construction, as the property was used for earning rental income.
The Tribunal held that the first appeal was not maintainable as filed and dismissed it. For the other two appeals, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is mandated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely on grounds of non-prosecution. The dismissal for non-prosecution was set aside, and the case was remanded for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was cryptic and the addition of Rs. 27,58,000 was not justified. The assessee had provided the source of funds as liquor sales, and the cash book and sales register supported this claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 353 days considering the assessee's background and the reasonable cause. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not judiciously considered the evidence and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable as the assessee was pursuing an alternate remedy of rectification and substantial justice is more important than procedural delays.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity by the CIT(A) due to incorrect email communication of hearing notices. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly considered the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. The disallowance of 10% of total purchases was also deemed arbitrary. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, following Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) cannot step into the shoes of the assessing officer at the stage of granting registration. The CIT(E) is required to examine only the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities, not the quantum of expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee should not suffer due to the tax consultant's mistakes. The Tribunal also set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay, and since the DR had no objection to condoning the delay, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the wrong mention of the section code was a bonafide mistake. The CIT(Exemptions) should have provided an opportunity for rectification and personal hearing before rejecting the application, especially since the trust's genuineness and activities were not in doubt.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) cannot step into the shoes of the assessing officer at the stage of granting registration. The CIT(E) is required to examine only the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities, not the quantum of expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay without deciding on merits. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after the assessee proves the service date of the assessment order and pays costs.
The assessee's counsel submitted that a consequential assessment order had been passed without additions, making the appeal academic. The revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It was held that the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and Ld.CIT(A) were not in accordance with law as sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It was held that the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and Ld.CIT(A) were not in accordance with law as sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal addressed the grounds raised by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee. Regarding the exclusion of comparables, the Tribunal found that ICRA Techno Analytics Limited was correctly excluded due to its foreign exchange transactions not meeting the TPO's filter. The assessee's contention regarding the provision for bad and doubtful debts being part of operating cost was upheld, affirming the CIT(A)'s direction to treat it as such. On the issue of negative working capital adjustment, the Tribunal noted that since six comparable companies were directed to be excluded, this ground of appeal became infructuous and was dismissed. In the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the disallowance of Rs.2,18,56,257/- (provision for income tax and MAT credit reversal) under Section 40(a) resulted in a double addition, as these amounts were already excluded in the tax computation. The Assessing Officer was directed to start the computation from profit before tax, thereby eliminating the double disallowance. The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is part of operating cost as it relates to sales already booked. The issue of negative working capital adjustment was dismissed as infructuous due to the exclusion of comparables. The double disallowance of Rs.2,18,56,257/- was directed to be deleted.