Loading ITAT cases…
46 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to consider the relevant CBDT circulars and ensure a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed below the enhanced limit are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the payments made as salary/honorarium to the trustees were not for services rendered but were for the benefit of the related persons, thus violating Section 13(1)(c). The disallowance and consequent taxation were upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's successful application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which the Revenue did not object to.
The Tribunal held that the payments made as salary/honorarium to the trustees were not for services rendered but were for the benefit of the related persons, thus violating Section 13(1)(c). The disallowance and consequent taxation were upheld.
The assessee intended to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee's successful application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which the Revenue did not object to.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, as it is obligatory to dispose of appeals on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including affidavits from the assessee and seller, clarifying a typographical error in the payment date. The Tribunal found that these new evidences were crucial and had not been considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the payments made as salary/honorarium to the trustees were not for services rendered but were for the benefit of the related persons, thus violating Section 13(1)(c). The disallowance and consequent taxation were upheld.
The Tribunal held that in cases where no assessment proceedings are pending on the date of search, additions under Section 153A can only be made based on seized material. Since no incriminating material was found and the assessment proceedings were unabated, the addition made by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal followed its own order in a previous assessment year for the same assessee, which had decided an identical issue in favour of the assessee. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee availing the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the Income Tax Department issuing the relevant certificate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper substantiation of notice service, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that TDS provisions under Section 194C are not attracted when the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessee as milling charges. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that when income is determined by rejecting books of accounts and applying a net profit rate, no separate addition for unexplained expenditure can be made. This principle was supported by various High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the advance of Rs. 3,07,230/- should be excluded from deemed dividend as it was adjusted against dividends distributed by the company. This adjustment falls under the exception provided in Section 2(22)(e)(iii) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that TDS provisions under Section 194C are not attracted when the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessee as milling charges. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in calculating the shortfall by using the Income & Expenditure Account instead of the Receipt and Payment Account. The issue was set aside to the AO for re-verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the previous directions of the ITAT by not obtaining and confronting the assessee with the relevant evidence from the investigation report. Consequently, the additions made by the lower authorities were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bonafide claim under a mistaken belief and there was no effort to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The legal issue was left open for adjudication in an appropriate case.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.
The Tribunal held that the fixed deposits were justifiable for the trust's activities and that the interest paid to the trustee at 10% was not excessive, especially when compared to the 14.75% interest paid on secured bank loans. Therefore, the disallowance and enhancement were not sustainable.
The tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form 3.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals, as was the case with the earlier circular. Therefore, appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced limit should not have been filed.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3.
The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that a categorical finding on whether the notice under Section 143(2) was issued was necessary. Both parties agreed to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had settled the dispute under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and made the necessary payments. The department had no objection.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's applications to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee having availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department issuing the relevant certificate.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's applications to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and receiving Form No. 3.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's applications to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee having availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department issuing the necessary certificates.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted because the assessee had availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and the necessary certificate had been issued.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's applications to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee having availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and receiving Form No. 3.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received a certificate. The Revenue did not object.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT circular which set a higher monetary limit for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and received a certificate from the Income Tax Department.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals filed by the department below the enhanced monetary limit should not have been filed.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessee's claim of being able to produce evidence of tax payment by the NBFCs and an unadjudicated ground of appeal.