Loading ITAT cases…
298 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate claims regarding loans and investments, and even failed to provide plausible explanations. The claim of borrowing from companies was also found to be false.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate claims regarding loans and investments, and even failed to provide plausible explanations. The claim of borrowing from companies was also found to be false.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. It also held that expenses not debited to the Profit and Loss Account cannot be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal found that agricultural operations were indeed being carried out, based on a surprise inspection and Village Revenue Officer certificates. However, due to a lack of substantiating evidence for the exact quantum, the disallowances were restricted to 10% of the vegetable income and 10% of the agricultural expenses.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not make an application under Section 195(2) for determination of the proportionate tax, the proportionate disallowance could not be determined. Consequently, the ground challenging this was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reply was filed before the predecessor CIT(A) and was not considered by the successor. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found discrepancies between the sale deeds and the assessee's claims regarding the sale of residential flats. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the nature of the property sold and recalculation of capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to substantiate claims regarding loans and investments, and even failed to provide plausible explanations. The claim of borrowing from companies was also found to be false.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of importing and distributing Wattle extracts to its members did not constitute 'trade, commerce or business' as per the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of importing and distributing Wattle extracts to its members did not constitute 'trade, commerce or business' as per the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the statement of the accommodation entry operator for cross-examination and to verify the genuineness of transactions with freight vendors, including TDS details.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the statement of the accommodation entry operator for cross-examination and to verify the genuineness of transactions with freight vendors, including TDS details.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the statement of the accommodation entry operator for cross-examination and to verify the genuineness of transactions with freight vendors, including TDS details.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the statement of the accommodation entry operator for cross-examination and to verify the genuineness of transactions with freight vendors, including TDS details.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with the statement of the accommodation entry operator for cross-examination and to verify the genuineness of transactions with freight vendors, including TDS details.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution towards PF and ESI, though deducted from salaries, is deposited after the statutory due dates but before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it shall be allowed as a deduction. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of importing and distributing Wattle extracts to its members did not constitute 'trade, commerce or business' as per the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of importing and distributing Wattle extracts to its members did not constitute 'trade, commerce or business' as per the proviso to Section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, dismissed the appeal as being withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions. It noted that the assessee claimed the loans were received through banking channels and repaid by cheque, and that shares were allotted for share application money, supported by an affidavit, Form No. 2, and Annual Returns. The Tribunal also acknowledged the delay in the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A) and the lack of an effective opportunity for hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the issues in the appeal needed to be restored to the file of the AO for framing a denovo assessment on merits. The Tribunal clarified that the primary onus remains on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. If the assessee did not cooperate, the AO could adjudicate based on available material. The AO was directed to admit the assessee's evidence and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made substantial compliance with the conditions for a lower penalty rate under Section 271AAB(1)(a), despite the delayed filing of the return. The penalty should be levied at 10% of the undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that rental income from the factory land and building should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property'. The issue of disallowance of interest expenses was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with the onus on the assessee to prove the nexus. The ground related to property tax was dismissed due to the assessee's inability to provide evidence.
The Tribunal held that investment in chit funds is not a prescribed mode under Section 11(5) and constitutes a violation. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the taxable income to the extent of the violation, not deny the entire exemption.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the Kodaikanal property was a business asset or a personal asset needed further examination. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to determine if the proprietorship concern continued to exist and if the Kodaikanal property remained a fixed asset.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not consider the assessee's claim of agricultural land. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rental income from the factory land and building should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property'. The issue of disallowance of interest expenses was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with the onus on the assessee to prove the nexus. The ground related to property tax was dismissed due to the assessee's inability to provide evidence.
The Tribunal held that investment in chit funds is not a prescribed mode under Section 11(5) and constitutes a violation. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the taxable income to the extent of the violation, not deny the entire exemption.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication denovo. This was done to comply with the principles of natural justice, ensuring the assessee receives a copy of Shri Kushal Raj's statement and an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach of taxing gross receipts without considering claimed expenditure was untenable. The Assessing Officer should have either allowed the expenditure or converted the case into a scrutiny assessment if verification was needed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by simply following a previous tribunal decision without a detailed examination of the facts. Therefore, the issue of Section 80IC deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after furnishing the relevant material.
The Tribunal held that after the settlement deed, the husband had no right or title over the property. The payment of ₹1 Crore was considered an application of income, not a necessary expense for the sale.
The Tribunal, considering CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the issues were already resolved. The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after furnishing the relevant material.
The Tribunal held that since similar expenses were allowed in previous and subsequent assessment years without specific deviations being pointed out, the principle of consistency should apply. Therefore, the assessee's claim for management services should be allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of enquiries made 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 details of inquiries, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.