Loading ITAT cases…
85 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of exemption was based on presumption, as the transactions were conducted through recognized stock exchanges, Demat accounts, and banking channels. The long holding period further supported the assessee's claim.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Power Ltd. The appeal was found to be non-maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's method of calculating the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not clear from the assessment order. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been granted adequate opportunity to present their appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that ATMs function as computers by processing information and performing logical/arithmetic functions. It distinguished the Karnataka High Court ruling based on different statutory interpretations and followed its own prior decisions and Bombay High Court rulings.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid for disallowing expenditure. However, the addition for the OTS waiver was not permissible as it was already decided in favour of the assessee. The issue of interest and finance charges was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The tribunal held that the silver transaction was a capital investment and the loss should be treated as a capital loss, not a business loss. The locker rent was allowed as a business expense.
The Tribunal found that the assessee needs to provide further material and explanations to the AO to establish the genuineness of the sales commission payments. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee invested the full amount in the purchase of a new residential property within the prescribed time, the claim for deduction under Section 54F should be allowed. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision regarding procedural compliance.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as it was done within four years and the Assessing Officer had recorded valid reasons with a clear link to the issues. The Tribunal also upheld the assessment of rental income in the hands of the firm, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to substantiate her claim for deduction under Section 54F. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the actual sale consideration for the purpose of considering the deduction under Section 54F, rather than the value determined by the Sub-Registrar.
The Tribunal held that ATMs function as computers by processing information and performing logical/arithmetic functions. It distinguished the Karnataka High Court ruling based on different statutory interpretations and followed its own prior decisions and Bombay High Court rulings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary evidence.
The ITAT noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee needs to provide further material and explanations to the AO to establish the genuineness of the sales commission payments. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the undisclosed income was not available with the assessee as on the date of the search or as on March 31, 2012. Therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of telescoping the disclosed undisclosed income against the additions made for unexplained investments.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the low tax effect. Regarding the consultancy charges, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine reimbursement and agreements between the assessee and its sister concern.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in accepting fresh evidence without a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the undisclosed income was not available with the assessee as on the date of the search or as on March 31, 2012. Therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of telescoping the disclosed undisclosed income against the additions made for unexplained investments.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the pending Writ Petition. This was done in the interest of natural justice, as the eligibility for deduction depended on the outcome of the Writ Petition.
The Tribunal held that the undisclosed income was not available with the assessee as on the date of the search or as on March 31, 2012. Therefore, the assessee should be given the benefit of telescoping the disclosed undisclosed income against the additions made for unexplained investments.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest on advances to the sister concern due to lack of commercial expediency. For Section 40A(3) disallowances, some were allowed as business expenditure, while others were confirmed. Donations were allowed as business expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to plausible reasons. It held that the assessee should be provided with the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and an opportunity to object, as well as be heard as per Section 129.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was provided substantial opportunities but showed non-cooperation. However, to uphold natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a substantial explanation for the cash deposits, supported by bank statements and a sale deed. The delay in redepositing the funds was within a reasonable period of forty days.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee eventually appeared and furnished the required details, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not ex-parte under Section 144, the penalty levied for non-compliance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue's officers. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
Following a previous order of the tribunal on a similar plea, the tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after the disposal of the assessee's writ petition by the High Court.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee started availing Section 10A benefits from AY 1997-98. However, it was unclear if the assessee had claimed Section 10A benefits for AYs 1994-95 to 1996-97. The issue was remitted to the AO to verify this claim.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue's officers. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with these appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause and admitted the appeal. It was held that the issue of unexplained investment required a fresh examination in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not warranted as the tax audit report was available to the Assessing Officer before assessment, and the delay was due to technical reasons beyond the assessee's control, constituting a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to cooperate and prove their case under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce fresh evidence. This was done in the interest of natural justice, as the evidence was not readily available earlier.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to pursue the appeal before the CIT(A) due to his auditor's illness. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the issue was similar to a previous assessment year where the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A). Therefore, the present case is also remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on whether the funds advanced to the sister concern were out of business expediency.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of agricultural income was not justified, especially since the assessee owned substantial land and had agricultural activities. The AO's reasoning for treating the balance as other income, based on owning vehicles, was also found to be insufficient.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify if the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments and to consider only investments yielding exempt income for computation.
The Tribunal found that the nexus between borrowed funds and exempt income, and the claim of interest expenditure, were not adequately examined. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a partner in the development venture and the addition could not be made based solely on the difference between Form 26AS and the profit and loss account without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the assessee's business was financial services and the facts and law were similar to the previous case, there was no reason to interfere. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.