Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for reassessment proceedings under Section 147, even when a return is filed in response to a Section 148 notice. The absence of such a notice vitiates the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal observed discrepancies in bank statements and certificates provided by the assessee, noting that the figures did not match the assessee's own admission of Rs. 1.30 crores. Due to these inconsistencies and the need for a fresh examination, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) is directed to examine why the assessee did not pay advance tax and to decide on merits if the assessee is liable and seeks exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly exercised power under Section 154 to rectify the earlier order, as the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. established a clear legal position. The disallowance of the employee's contribution due to late deposit was considered a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock represents suppressed business profits and should be treated as business income, not deemed income under Section 69. Therefore, Section 115BBE is not applicable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds of appeal, finding them to be purely legal in nature. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to examine these grounds and decide the case afresh.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the first appellate order were not meritorious due to a violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the original assessment order contained incorrect figures and facts due to copy-paste errors, and the PCIT failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding these errors. The Tribunal also noted the Income Tax Department's failure to rectify the original assessment order within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide evidence to rebut the assessee's argument that the hospital provided medical facilities to the needy without any distinction of caste or religion. Therefore, the denial of exemption and the addition made by the lower authorities were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the entire assessment proceedings are vitiated due to the non-service of notices on the assessee. Relying on various High Court judgments, it was stated that reassessment proceedings are not valid if the notice under Section 148 is not served.
The Tribunal held that the 'Other Method' was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction and that the independent valuation report should have been accepted. Consequently, the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the TPO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying registration to the university. It found that a university established as a body corporate under a statute is a 'person' eligible for registration under section 12AB, provided its objects are charitable and its activities are genuine and compliant with laws.
The Tribunal held that while interest income on FDRs and savings accounts is taxable, the assessee had a bonafide belief that it was not taxable due to consistent prior decisions of the Tribunal. Therefore, interest under Section 234B was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the initial intimation under Section 143(1) merges with the assessment order under Section 143(3), and subsequent rectification orders also merge. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds of appeal as they emanated from the AO's actions, even if not explicitly discussed in the assessment order's body.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that since the rental payments for godowns were accepted in earlier and subsequent years, and the business operations were consistent, disallowing them for the current year was unjustified. The assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the sales to M/s. Hemant Jewels Pvt. Ltd. were made in the regular course of business, and the company's status as 'Active' in ROC records was noted. The Tribunal also considered that cash deposits were mainly from jewellery sales and that the assessee maintained stock records.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IC. It found that the assessee failed to establish that Unit-II was not formed by splitting up from an existing business and did not meet the conditions of independent existence and separate infrastructure as required by the section.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IC. It found that the assessee failed to establish that Unit-II was not formed by splitting up from an existing business and did not meet the conditions of independent existence and separate infrastructure as required by the section.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IC. It found that the assessee failed to establish that Unit-II was not formed by splitting up from an existing business and did not meet the conditions of independent existence and separate infrastructure as required by the section.
The ITAT noted that the monetary limit for filing an appeal by the Revenue before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, is Rs. 60 lacs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling the approval. It found that the facts regarding security deposits and land ownership by companies were known at the time of initial approval and had not changed. The Tribunal relied on various case laws to emphasize that the substance of the transaction, rather than its form, should be examined, and that the society's income was utilized for educational purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80IC. It found that the assessee failed to establish that Unit-II was not formed by splitting up from an existing business and did not meet the conditions of independent existence and separate infrastructure as required by the section.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations and documents for both the cash deposits and agricultural income to the lower authorities. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO had erred in rejecting this evidence and making the addition.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. This decision pertained to the entitlement and extent of deduction under Section 80IC for substantial expansion.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act does not bar filing multiple applications for registration, even if previous ones were rejected. The CIT(Exemptions)'s rejection based solely on past rejections was set aside.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the period of COVID-19 pandemic. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to decide the case on merits and therefore, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the case were covered by previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench, which allowed similar claims of cash sales explaining bank deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search operation. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld, relying on Supreme Court judgments regarding the necessity of incriminating material for assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO of International Tax based on this invalid notice was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence and consider the case on merits. It found no dispute regarding the quantum of income finally assessed after considering the remand reports.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the consequential order as the PCIT's revisionary order, which formed its basis, had already been set aside by the ITAT. This decision was further upheld by the High Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case, and the proceedings were ex-parte. The case was set aside for a fresh decision by the CIT(A) after providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that investment in equity shares and dividend paid are not 'specified domestic transactions' under Section 92BA. Furthermore, salary paid to directors was below the threshold for applicability of Section 92BA, and the relevant clause was later omitted from the Act. Therefore, the reference to the TPO and the consequent adjustment were without legal basis.