Loading ITAT cases…
30 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the facts regarding the construction of the school building. The issue of expenditure on construction was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT (Pr. CIT) granted sanction for reassessment proceedings mechanically without applying his mind, similar to a previous case. Therefore, the reassessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS as income did not accrue in India, and that disallowance under Section 14A was not applicable as no exempt income was received. The deposit of employee's contribution before the due date of filing the return was also held to be allowable.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land under the NH Act, 1956, is exempt from income tax as per the RFCTALARR Act, 2013, and the clarificatory CBDT circular. The AO's rejection of the exemption claim was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in cancelling the registration without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without awaiting the appraisal report from the Assessing Officer. The order was passed in haste, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in cancelling the registration without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without awaiting the appraisal report from the Assessing Officer. The order was passed in haste, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in cancelling the registration without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and without awaiting the appraisal report from the Assessing Officer. The order was passed in haste, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the society's objects were for public utility and that registration could be granted based on proposed activities, even if not yet commenced. The CIT(E)'s rejection was based on erroneous grounds.
The Tribunal held that the opening capital balance, being a carry-forward from previous years, cannot be taxed as income in the current year if those previous years have already been reassessed. Regarding the unexplained investment, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence of the source of funds through bank statements and directed the AO to delete the addition after verification.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land under the NH Act, 1956, is exempt from income tax as per the RFCTALARR Act, 2013, and the clarificatory CBDT circular. The AO's rejection of the exemption claim was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Since the issues were settled and the appeal had become academic, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal concerning the correct assessment year for the capital gain. It noted that crucial evidence, like the bank statement showing credit on 01/10/2008, was not before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that if employee contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, they cannot be disallowed. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly refused to admit the additional grounds of appeal. The subsequent SEBI order validating the share transactions provided a legitimate basis for the assessees to claim the LTCG as exempt.
The Tribunal upheld the addition, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee was estopped from claiming a higher consideration than what was registered in the sale deed. The excess amount was considered income from other sources.
The Tribunal agreed that while the advance was sourced from the cash deposit, the source of the cash deposit itself remained unexplained as the assessee could not substantiate it as sale receipts. The matter was restored to the AO to examine the source of the cash deposit.
The Tribunal held that the circumstantial and surrounding evidence, including the trustees' qualifications and the trust's growth under their leadership, was sufficient to demonstrate their services. The basis adopted by the revenue authorities for quantifying undue benefit was also found unreasonable.
The Tribunal held that the AO indeed lacked the power to withdraw the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and should have referred the matter to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Therefore, the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the CIT(E)'s revisionary action.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly refused to admit the additional grounds of appeal. The subsequent SEBI order validating the share transactions provided a legitimate basis for the assessees to claim the LTCG as exempt.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act has no role to play in the matters of granting, declining, or cancelling registration under Section 12AA. The power to cancel registration under Section 12AA(3) is limited to cases where activities are not genuine or not in accordance with the trust's objects.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and obtained the necessary certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission's findings, which stated the assessee was engaged in trading activities and not merely an accommodation entry provider, were final. The department could not prove the alleged bogus entries beyond a certain amount, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified at the rate upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission's findings, which stated the assessee was engaged in trading activities and not merely an accommodation entry provider, were final. The department could not prove the alleged bogus entries beyond a certain amount, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified at the rate upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission's findings, which stated the assessee was engaged in trading activities and not merely an accommodation entry provider, were final. The department could not prove the alleged bogus entries beyond a certain amount, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified at the rate upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission's findings, which stated the assessee was engaged in trading activities and not merely an accommodation entry provider, were final. The department could not prove the alleged bogus entries beyond a certain amount, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified at the rate upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance is restricted to the exempt dividend income of Rs. 10,760/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's status as an illiterate agriculturist and identical circumstances to a previous case. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission's findings, which stated the assessee was engaged in trading activities and not merely an accommodation entry provider, were final. The department could not prove the alleged bogus entries beyond a certain amount, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified at the rate upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission's findings, which stated the assessee was engaged in trading activities and not merely an accommodation entry provider, were final. The department could not prove the alleged bogus entries beyond a certain amount, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified at the rate upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission's findings, which stated the assessee was engaged in trading activities and not merely an accommodation entry provider, were final. The department could not prove the alleged bogus entries beyond a certain amount, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified at the rate upheld by the CIT(A).