Loading ITAT cases…
67 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, allowing the claim for interest paid to allottees and the income tax on perquisites. The order of the CIT(A) was modified to this extent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the ex-parte nature of the earlier proceedings and the death of one assessee, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the ex-parte nature of the earlier proceedings and the death of one assessee, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the revised return filed under Section 139(4) was valid as per the amended Section 139(5) applicable from AY 2017-18. Since the CIT(A) decided the matter on merits without proper opportunity, the case was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, stating that the AO's assessment was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal against the revisionary order.
The Tribunal found that extrapolating income for the entire year based on only 51 days of bookings was not logical. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a High Court ruling, noting that the survey occurred early in the assessment year, potentially impacting future business, unlike the cited case where income was already earned before the search.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, allowing the claim for interest paid to allottees and the income tax on perquisites. The order of the CIT(A) was modified to this extent.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, allowing the claim for interest paid to allottees and the income tax on perquisites. The order of the CIT(A) was modified to this extent.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, allowing the claim for interest paid to allottees and the income tax on perquisites. The order of the CIT(A) was modified to this extent.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, stating that the AO's assessment was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal against the revisionary order.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received, being directly attributable to plant and machinery and technical civil works, must be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for depreciation purposes as per Section 43(1) read with Explanation 10 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation on the portion of the cost met by the subsidy.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It was held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to a communication gap and lack of effective opportunity for the assessee.
The ITAT noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as it was an ex-parte order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that both the assessee and the department had failed in their duties. The AO did not conduct a thorough inquiry, and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper verification. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed an order on merit. To ensure justice and uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that there were sufficient reasons for the assessee's delay in responding to notices. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without addressing any of the issues on merit. Therefore, the tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO/CPC lacked the jurisdiction to disallow the deduction under Section 143(1) for a belated return at the relevant time, as the enabling provisions for such disallowance were introduced later. Therefore, the disallowance was cancelled.
The Tribunal noted that a recent CBDT circular extended the time limit for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration in light of the new circular.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries, including specific queries regarding project completion and purchases from a particular timber supplier. The Tribunal found that an inadequate inquiry is not a ground for revision under Section 263 and that the PCIT's order was passed without proper jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing benefits under Section 11 as the imprest balance was a carry-over from the previous year and no new accretion warranted invoking Section 13. The donation to India Vision Foundation was also held to be an allowable application of income as it was made to another registered charitable trust.
The Tribunal held that the donations from students were not anonymous and the provisions of Section 115BBC and Section 68 were not attracted. However, a portion of the surplus retained by the Chairman was disallowed under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d).
The Tribunal held that the salaries paid to the trustees were not unjustified, considering their full-time involvement in the institution. The Department had accepted similar payments in previous and subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that while the amount retained by the Chairman in his personal account without specific purpose cannot be allowed, the entire surplus treated as taxable was excessive. The addition was restricted to the amount retained by the Chairman.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to only three specific parties where evidence of under-invoicing was found. Extrapolation to the entire turnover was deemed unjustified for other parties.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to only three specific parties where evidence of under-invoicing was found. Extrapolation to the entire turnover was deemed unjustified for other parties.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80IC deduction for most items, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee's activities constituted trading rather than manufacturing. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction on profits from plastic feeder clamp assemblies.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because it was initiated for non-reporting but levied for failure to maintain accounts, a discrepancy in grounds. Furthermore, the assessee had a reasonable basis for non-reporting based on professional advice, and no adverse view was taken by the TPO on the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the Section 80IC deduction for most items, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee's activities constituted trading rather than manufacturing. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction on profits from plastic feeder clamp assemblies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to 100% of the deduction claimed under Section 54, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to be out of India and unaware of the proceedings, and that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without granting an effective opportunity. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions and had a reasonable cause for non-appearance due to the medical condition of their counsel. The facts regarding the property's vacancy and potential letting needed further examination.
The Tribunal found that the case was not decided on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the non-receipt of notices and the ex-parte order. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, citing the principle of substantial justice and fair play. It noted that the evidence went to the root of the matter in determining the nature and source of the deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation, finding that the assessee's prior ITAT ruling on the same issue for an earlier assessment year was binding. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, agreeing that the disallowance should be restricted to the exempt income earned.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a de novo hearing. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and provide all relevant documents and explanations.
The Tribunal held that the additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny (i.e., Rs. 73,60,924/-) should be deleted. For the cash deposits of Rs. 7,50,000/-, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause due to the circumstances explained by the assessee. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that booking a flat with a builder is to be treated as construction of a flat by the assessee, and the investment made in the property is eligible for deduction under Section 54F. The law does not debar capital gains investment in the same property in two different years if other conditions are met.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved, which was below the prescribed threshold, and the matter did not fall under any exceptions. The delay was not condoned.
The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee's counsel and granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect (Rs. 63,769/-) which was below the prescribed threshold, and the case did not fall under any exceptions listed in the CBDT circulars. The delay in filing the appeal was also not condoned.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect and the absence of any exceptions under the CBDT circulars, despite a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. The delay in filing the appeal was not condoned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer was justified in exercising the power under Section 154. The AO was entitled to consider all available records, not just the assessment order, to rectify a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that a valid notice ought to have been served on the assessee and that the case was covered by the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The impugned order was set aside with a direction to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay in filing the appeal. The principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.