Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal concurred with the statutory mandate of Section 57(iv) that only 50% of the interest income is taxable. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 50% of the interest amount.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to a charitable fund.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for de novo assessment, citing principles of natural justice. The appeals were admitted and restored to the AO, subject to the assessee paying costs.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for de novo assessment, citing principles of natural justice. The appeals were admitted and restored to the AO, subject to the assessee paying costs.
The Tribunal held that a job title does not determine financial position and that repeat aid or assistance to school staff does not make genuine charitable activity non-charitable. It also found that the CIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to cancel the existing registration without following the prescribed procedure under Section 12AB(4).
The Tribunal deleted the interest disallowance, holding that the assessee had sufficient own funds to make advances. It also deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), finding that the payments were not in the nature of commission or brokerage requiring TDS under Section 194H.
The Tribunal held that a job title does not determine financial position and that repeat aid or assistance to school staff does not make genuine charitable activity non-charitable. It also found that the CIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to cancel the existing registration without following the prescribed procedure under Section 12AB(4).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits, even though the assessee admitted to receiving 'on money'. The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid because the reasons recorded for reopening did not establish a nexus with the transaction ultimately assessed. The AO's belief of escapement was based on specific penny stocks, but the assessment proceeded on a different set of shares, and the assessee's objections were not properly addressed.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after accepting the assessee's prayer for remand. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claims before the lower authorities. However, it also found that Section 115BBE might not be applicable for the assessment year. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a mere time gap between cash availability and its deposit in the bank cannot be the sole reason for addition, especially when the Revenue fails to establish that the amount was spent elsewhere. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Sh. Shiv Charan Dass.
The Tribunal held that entries in third-party excel sheets without corroborative evidence are not sufficient to make an addition. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches and the principle that statements of third parties cannot be used without cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that a mere time gap between cash availability and its deposit in the bank cannot be the sole reason for addition, especially when the Revenue fails to establish that the amount was spent elsewhere. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Sh. Shiv Charan Dass.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to admit additional evidence and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case with the new evidence.
The Tribunal held that some additions were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as they were either considered in a prior assessment year or were estimations of commission income. However, certain additions treated as commission income by the CIT(A) should be considered as such, not deleted entirely.
The Tribunal held that some additions were rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as they were either considered in a prior assessment year or were estimations of commission income. However, certain additions treated as commission income by the CIT(A) should be considered as such, not deleted entirely.
The Tribunal held that the registered sale deed is the primary evidence of transfer. The purchaser confirmed the sale consideration was Rs. 22 Lacs. Considering the assessee is an agriculturist, some benefit was granted.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee failed to provide complete justification, the existence of agricultural operations and prior withdrawals could not be entirely ruled out. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 2 Lacs.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellant for non-compliance. The delay in filing appeals was condoned upon payment of this cost.
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to the assessee planting trees as restitution for environmental cost. Following similar past cases, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellant for non-compliance. The delay in filing appeals was condoned upon payment of this cost.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the appellant for non-compliance. The delay in filing appeals was condoned upon payment of this cost.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income should be treated as business income and taxed at the normal rate. The higher tax rate under Section 115BBE is applicable only from Financial Year 2017-18 onwards.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoning the delay, and remanded the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct adequate inquiry, such as issuing a notice under Section 133(6), to verify the genuineness of the sale of eucalyptus trees. Mere spelling mistakes or absence of certain particulars in the confirmation do not render the transaction bogus.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had valued the inventory in accordance with the prescribed accounting standard, supported by physical verification and auditor's certification. The Assessing Officer failed to provide any positive material or independent valuation to counter the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for another hearing, setting aside the impugned order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted enquiries and accepted a plausible view presented by the assessee, which could not be substituted by the Pr. CIT's own view.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for a remand, citing principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 59 days, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide and constituting sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits as the original appeal was not decided on grounds.
The Tribunal held that while there was a technical default, the subsequent compliance and completion of assessment under Section 143(3) established reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of Section 249(4)(b) without a detailed examination of the facts and the proviso. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of Section 249(4)(b) without a detailed examination of the facts and the proviso. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for a remand, citing principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, set aside the impugned order on the grounds of natural justice. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding no direct evidence of suppressed sales and noting that the AO's inference was based on a single day's sale compared to an oral estimate. The Tribunal upheld this deletion.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of Section 249(4)(b) without a detailed examination of the facts and the proviso. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case by the CIT(A) and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding the incorrect starting figure for reassessment, directing recomputation. It partly allowed the vehicle loan interest disallowance, restricting it to the unreconciled amount. The disallowance for salary and wages was confirmed due to lack of satisfactory evidence.
The Tribunal held that the 8% profit estimation was excessive and reduced it to 5% of turnover. It also deleted the addition under Section 69A, considering the cash deposits as part of business receipts when business income was already estimated.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for remand back to the AO to allow the admission of additional evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including appellate orders in the actual owner's case, was crucial. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for remand, citing principles of natural justice, and directed the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the applications after the assessee files the necessary documents and proves its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found a material factual discrepancy regarding the property's actual consideration and the assessee's share. The CIT(A) also invoked a section not originally used by the AO without resolving factual disputes.
The Tribunal held that a technical error like choosing an incorrect section should not defeat a substantive claim without allowing the assessee a chance to rectify it. The impugned order was set aside as it was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted and that field inquiries were conducted at an incorrect address. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.