Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted on a bona fide belief that TDS was not required on such reimbursements, considering it a debatable issue settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted on a bona fide belief that TDS was not required on such reimbursements, considering it a debatable issue settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted on a bona fide belief that TDS was not required on such reimbursements, considering it a debatable issue settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted on a bona fide belief that TDS was not required on such reimbursements, considering it a debatable issue settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, with only a 50% deduction allowed under Section 57(iv). This decision followed a coordinate bench's ruling on identical facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had denied making any cash payment, supported by confirmation from Omaxe Group and bank statements. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove cash exchange, and the cross-examination provided did not support the AO's allegations.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of third-party information without independent inquiry or corroborative evidence. Following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue requires deeper factual and legal examination by the Assessing Officer, considering the nature of FCCB transactions and the regulatory framework. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue requires deeper factual and legal examination by the Assessing Officer, considering the nature of FCCB transactions and the regulatory framework. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue requires deeper factual and legal examination by the Assessing Officer, considering the nature of FCCB transactions and the regulatory framework. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted on a bona fide belief that TDS was not required on such reimbursements, as it was a debatable issue settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the first proviso to section 149. It also noted that the notice was issued on an incorrect PAN, and the assessee had provided the correct PAN with supporting details.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to plant 200 trees as a condition for this.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, allowed the assessee's prayer for another opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to plant 200 trees as a condition for this.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not comprehensively examined the assessee's submissions, including RTI replies, regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to substantiate its claim by producing requisite documents and information before the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that mere concentration of management in a family is not sufficient to deny registration unless activities are found to be non-genuine or not charitable. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity to furnish the original trust deed.
The Tribunal partially accepted the assessee's claim, confirming an addition of Rs. 2 Lacs and deleting the remaining addition. The AO was directed to re-compute the income based on these findings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) proceeded to reject the applications without effective service of notices and without examining the merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal held that mere receipt of funds from a Municipal Corporation with TDS deducted does not automatically imply business activity. A detailed examination of the nature of the arrangement, obligations, and whether activities were in furtherance of charitable objects was required.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's arguments regarding exemption under Section 10(23A) and mutuality. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) proceeded to reject the applications without effective service of notices and without examining the merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's audited books of accounts and cash sales were sufficient to explain the deposits. The addition was based on mere presumptions without concrete evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's accounts were audited, the due date for filing the return was extended to 30th September. As the return was filed within this extended due date, the assessee is eligible for carry forward of the computed loss.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable due to factually erroneous assumptions and lack of tangible material connecting the assessee to the seized information. The addition under Section 69 was deleted as it was based on uncorroborated third-party material and violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found a reasonable nexus between cash withdrawals from an old bank account and deposits into a new one. Since the assessee provided an agreement to sell, the onus shifted to the revenue to rebut the claim, which they failed to do.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication de novo on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to present its case and for the AO to conduct proper inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee denied making any cash payment and that the revenue failed to provide evidence of cash exchange or an opportunity for cross-examination. The onus was on the revenue to prove the allegation, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s exercise of remand power, especially since the AO had accepted the returned income in the subsequent remand proceedings. Therefore, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merit and had contravened the principles of natural justice by not providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings and deleted the addition. This was based on an affidavit from the assessee denying receipt of freebies and an email from the department indicating that an audit objection regarding taxing such freebies was dropped.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could potentially substantiate the source of the cash deposit. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be interpreted liberally. Mere non-deposit of the unutilized amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme, when the entire amount was invested within the statutory period, should not defeat the claim.
The Tribunal found that the assessee declared a substantial turnover, had audited books of account, and made significant cash sales. The cash summary indicated sufficient cash balance to cover the impugned deposits, which were reflected in VAT returns and accepted turnover.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive appeals against the alleged Power of Attorney holders are still pending. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the substantive appeals.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee-trust's history, granted another opportunity for adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment should have been framed under Section 148 read with Section 143(3) due to the search action and the provisions of Explanation-2 to Section 148. The assessment framed solely under Section 143(3) was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) was unsustainable because, following a search, proceedings should have been initiated under section 148 read with section 143(3). The assessment was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of property occurred on the date of the agreement to sell, as possession was handed over and full sale consideration was received by the assessee in AY 2018-19. The lien on the property, which caused the delay in the sale deed registration, was resolved before the sale deed was executed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Kanwaljeet Kaur, the notice issued under Section 148 was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced sufficient evidence to reconcile cash deposits during demonetization. However, to ensure natural justice and allow for thorough verification of documents filed before the Tribunal, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's potential to substantiate the cash deposit sources and in the interest of natural justice, granted another opportunity for a de novo assessment. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once assessment proceedings under Section 148/143(3) have been completed after investigations and verifications on a particular issue, the same issue should not be taken up for revision under Section 263. The action of the PCIT was found to be not in accordance with the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice, subject to the condition of planting 1000 trees. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be hyper-technical and a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s objections regarding the land transactions were unsubstantiated and based on mere apprehension rather than conclusive findings. The assessee had provided satisfactory explanations for these transactions.
The Tribunal held that procedural or technical defects should not defeat substantive rights and that principles of natural justice require providing an opportunity to rectify such defects. The cancellation of applications without proper opportunity was deemed contrary to law.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct a comprehensive verification of the cash deposits and their corresponding transfers. The issue requires thorough factual verification and an adequate opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.