Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 3 of 4
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 held that the AO's assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had taken a plausible view on the capital gains issue, and the Pr. CIT had not established that the AO's order was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that the correctness of the demand, including the computation of interest, required verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for limited verification and re-computation of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not permissible as the cash availability was corroborated by quantitative details and the cash book, and the sales were not disputed and supported by VAT returns. The addition was considered a double addition.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation of the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001 based on circle rates was reasonable and justified, especially when the actual sale consideration was lower than the circle rates. The assessee had also benefited from a lower deemed sale consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely based on the surplus generated, especially when the surplus was utilized for charitable objects. The Tribunal also found that the donation details were adequately provided and the audit report's digital signature by the Chartered Accountant was sufficient.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation of non-service of the assessment order and lack of knowledge to be a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's sworn affidavit stating non-service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely based on the surplus generated, especially when the surplus was utilized for charitable objects. The Tribunal also found that the donation details were adequately provided and the audit report's digital signature by the Chartered Accountant was sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the substantial delay of over 5.5 years in submitting the ITR-V, especially after receiving a notice under Section 148, does not constitute a reasonable cause for the default. Therefore, the penalty imposed is confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits as business receipts, supported by her books of account and audit reports. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to disprove the assessee's explanation.
The tribunal held that a DVO's valuation report is not conclusive proof of unexplained investment. The addition based solely on an estimated difference in valuation, without corroborative material, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of inspection and certification charges was not justified as the services were rendered outside India and not in the nature of technical services. The foreign travel expenses were also allowed as the assessee sufficiently established the business purpose. The additions for unsecured loans were deleted as the AO had incorrectly investigated the 'source of source' before the relevant statutory amendment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice and effective adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, allowed the assessee another opportunity to present their case on merits. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to a charitable fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was significantly below the revised monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that since the complete trust deed and other relevant documents were now available, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to examine the complete record and re-adjudicate the application for registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee denied making cash payments, and this was supported by a confirmation from Omaxe Group. The revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove cash exchange with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount should be accepted as business income, and the claimed business expenses should be allowed. For Section 68 additions, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions where advances were refunded or adjusted in subsequent years, and directed verification for remaining amounts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits as business receipts, supported by her books of account and audit reports. The Revenue failed to provide specific material to disprove the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot take advantage of an inadvertent procedural mistake by the assessee to tax the same income twice. The addition was not sustainable as the corresponding income had already been disclosed in the return.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order to set aside the assessment but restricted the scope of reassessment proceedings to only the Rs. 9,01,000/- issue related to the typographical error in TCS returns.
The Tribunal held that since the complete trust deed and other relevant documents were now available, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to examine the complete record and re-adjudicate the application for registration.
The Tribunal held that since the complete trust deed and other relevant documents were now available, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to examine the complete record and re-adjudicate the application for registration.
The Tribunal held that since the complete trust deed and other relevant documents were now available, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to examine the complete record and re-adjudicate the application for registration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(Exemptions) for examination. This decision was made by respectfully following a similar decision by the Tribunal on the contours of religion and guidelines for approving such trusts.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical ground due to an inadvertent error in selecting the wrong clause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of hearing and allow the assessee to correct the application.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, emphasizing natural justice and the possibility of substantiating the source of funds. The appeals were admitted, and the matters were set aside to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the lack of sanction from the appropriate authority (Pr. CCIT/Pr. CIT) under Section 151(ii). Consequently, the revenue's appeal became academic.
The Tribunal held that the delay occurred during the COVID-19 lockdown period and should have been condoned as per the Supreme Court's directions. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee no longer wished to pursue it. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that while some discrepancies existed in the evidence provided by the assessee, the AO had not conducted independent investigations. The Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 10 Lacs, considering the estimation by the CIT(A) to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's cash book and bank statements showed sufficient cash balance traceable to prior withdrawals and returned imprest. Since the books were audited and no defects were pointed out, the deposits were considered explained.