Loading ITAT cases…
309 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that the delay in e-filing the appeal should be condoned, following Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of the corpus fund needs to be re-examined to determine if it falls within the assessment year. It also needs to be ascertained if the donation was for a specific object.
The Tribunal held that the delay in e-filing should be condoned, following Supreme Court and other Tribunal precedents. The appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to substantiate its claim before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits and therefore granted the assessee one more opportunity. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not produce adangal extracts, the cultivation of turmeric, sugarcane, and paddy alongside coconut trees was not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, an estimation of ₹75,000 per acre would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on the basis of revenue investigations without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue of exemption requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on the basis of revenue investigations without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue of exemption requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on the basis of revenue investigations without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue of exemption requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the estimation of profit at 8% as reasonable in the absence of supporting material from the assessee. However, it held that the estimation of profit does not automatically imply concealment or inaccurate particulars, leading to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The dissolution of the firm was considered a reasonable cause for non-compliance, leading to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal confirmed the estimation of profit at 8% as reasonable in the absence of supporting material from the assessee. However, it held that the estimation of profit does not automatically imply concealment or inaccurate particulars, leading to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The dissolution of the firm was considered a reasonable cause for non-compliance, leading to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was based on Revenue's investigation reports. The issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was based on Revenue's investigation reports. The issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was based on Revenue's investigation reports. The issue of genuineness requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary power under Section 263 was invoked by the Principal Commissioner. The assessee had replied to the show cause notice, bringing certain facts to the PCIT's attention.
The Tribunal held that if the guideline value is higher than the sale consideration, the guideline value must be adopted for computing capital gains as per Section 50C of the Act. The assessee did not dispute the guideline value or claim it was less than the market value.
The Tribunal held that since registration under Section 12AA was not available, the income should be computed commercially by allowing all expenditures incurred. The net income after deducting expenses should be brought to tax.
The Tribunal confirmed the estimation of profit at 8% as reasonable in the absence of supporting material from the assessee. However, it held that the estimation of profit does not automatically imply concealment or inaccurate particulars, leading to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The dissolution of the firm was considered a reasonable cause for non-compliance, leading to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction for verification of payments and applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) was not part of the show cause notice and was issued without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the source of excess funds and their application for charitable activities were not adequately explained in the assessment or appellate orders. Therefore, the matter needed re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, despite being an instrumentality of the State, cannot be equated with the State Government for the purpose of income tax. Its employees are not considered government employees, and the society is a separate legal entity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of demolition and reconstruction of a flat without the consent of co-owners was improbable. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction for verification of payments and applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) was not part of the show cause notice and was issued without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction for verification of payments and applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) was unsustainable as it was not an issue raised in the show cause notice and the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard on this specific point. Consequently, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on the basis of revenue investigations without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue of exemption requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on the basis of revenue investigations without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue of exemption requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on investigation reports without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The onus is on the assessee to prove the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that since registration under Section 12AA was not available, the income should be computed commercially by allowing all expenditures incurred. The net income after deducting expenses should be brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on investigation reports without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The onus is on the assessee to prove the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were made primarily on the basis of revenue investigations without giving the assessees a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue of exemption requires re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction for verification of payments and applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) was not part of the show cause notice and was issued without giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn and the related cross-objections as infructuous, following a CBDT circular that liberalized the policy for not filing appeals below a certain tax effect threshold.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on the hire purchase income recognition, directing taxation based on the consistently followed ESM method, following a High Court decision. For NPAs, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The issue of bad debt recovery was not fully elaborated in the provided text to determine the tribunal's final decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on the hire purchase income recognition, directing taxation based on the consistently followed ESM method, following a High Court decision. For NPAs, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The issue of bad debt recovery was not fully elaborated in the provided text to determine the tribunal's final decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on the hire purchase income recognition, directing taxation based on the consistently followed ESM method, following a High Court decision. For NPAs, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The issue of bad debt recovery was not fully elaborated in the provided text to determine the tribunal's final decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and other relevant materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and other relevant materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had not properly examined the validity of reopening the assessment beyond four years, as the Assessing Officer failed to provide reasons for the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The issue of deduction under Section 80-IB was also to be re-examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries, which prejudiced their case. Therefore, the matter needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. That decision had reversed the CIT(A)'s allowance of similar expenditure, holding it to be capital in nature.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals on the hire purchase income recognition, directing taxation based on the consistently followed ESM method, following a High Court decision. For NPAs, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The issue of bad debt recovery was not fully elaborated in the provided text to determine the tribunal's final decision.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.