Loading ITAT cases…
17 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as no proper inquiry was conducted by the PCIT. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders passed by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as no proper inquiry was conducted by the PCIT. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders passed by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as no proper inquiry was conducted by the PCIT. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders passed by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) wrongly invoked revisionary powers under Section 263 as no proper inquiry was conducted by the PCIT. The Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders passed by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act 2021, the employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction. The amendment was not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that expenses like depreciation, interest, repairs, and insurance are allowable deductions against income from other sources, even if they result in a net loss. The CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to the lease rental earned was deemed incorrect.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not adequately record his satisfaction or dissatisfaction regarding the trust's objects and activities. The Tribunal also noted that the non-filing of a return alone might not be sufficient to question the genuineness of activities, especially if books of accounts are maintained.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that submitting voluminous documents electronically in e-assessment was impractical. The matter was set aside to the AO for physical examination of the books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction. Consequently, the addition made by the revenue authorities was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding share premium, making the assessment order erroneous. Therefore, the PCIT's order invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's illiteracy and the possibility of not being properly represented, decided to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee was directed to provide explanations and documents.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by not considering the assessee's submissions and additional evidence, violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded to the AO for a fresh decision on merits after admitting the additional evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to the assessee's failure to appear and address the inordinate delay. The Tribunal noted the lack of proper documentation for condonation of delay and the assessee's inability to provide evidence for share capital additions.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, which was prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, the employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income was allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without proper consideration of the assessee's explanation and the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding pooled family savings for his son's education to be plausible given his background.