Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal restored the issue of lease rent to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, finding the CIT(A)'s deletion to be erroneous. The issue of sundry creditors was also remanded to the Assessing Officer to give the assessee another opportunity to provide reconciliation.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the late fee charged was invalid.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision. Therefore, the late fee charged was invalid.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasons for making additions towards construction expenses under Section 69C were incorrect, as the assessee had disclosed and explained the expenditure. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s enhancement of assessment for additional construction in the basement.
The Tribunal restored the issue of lease rent to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, finding the CIT(A)'s deletion to be erroneous. The issue of sundry creditors was also remanded to the Assessing Officer to give the assessee another opportunity to provide reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide confirmations or addresses for the parties from whom advances were allegedly realized. However, considering the COVID period, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasons for making additions towards construction expenses under Section 69C were incorrect, as the assessee had disclosed and explained the expenditure. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s enhancement of assessment for additional construction in the basement.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the case of Shri T.D. Naidu were remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal. Following this precedent and considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessees, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal restored the issue of lease rent to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, finding the CIT(A)'s deletion to be erroneous. The issue of sundry creditors was also remanded to the Assessing Officer to give the assessee another opportunity to provide reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the provision made by the assessee was an ad-hoc provision for potential bad debts, not an actual write-off of irrecoverable debts. Therefore, it did not satisfy the conditions for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search in relation to the expenses and interest, the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. The assessment under Section 153A is permissible only if incriminating material is found.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. Since the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the reopening was beyond four years, the Revenue failed to establish any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in one of the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, leading to its dismissal. For the other appeal, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had plausibly explained the negligible differences in stock quantities.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by decisions of the Madras High Court and the Tribunal's own co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the land in question was located beyond 6 km aerial distance from the Tambaram Municipality limits. Therefore, it was not a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and not taxable for capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 10B exemption was due to an interpretation of law and not concealment of income. Similarly, the application of Section 50C was also based on legal interpretation, not inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to decide the TDS disallowances based on whether the payments were reimbursement of expenses without profit and to compute deductions under Sections 10AA and 10B considering the allocation of R&D expenditure and any revised returns filed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 450 days before the ITAT and also the delay of 147 days before the CIT(A), subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of deemed dividend can only be made in the hands of the beneficial shareholder, not the assessee company. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was initiated beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 450 days before the ITAT and also the delay of 147 days before the CIT(A), subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are not automatic and require a clear satisfaction of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the return. Since the assessee disclosed the income in the return and the AO accepted it without addition, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the trust's activities, particularly running a working women's hostel and canteen, were commercial and not incidental to its charitable objectives. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was applicable, denying exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in one of the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, leading to its dismissal. For the other appeal, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had plausibly explained the negligible differences in stock quantities.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the trust's activities, particularly running a working women's hostel and canteen, were commercial and not incidental to its charitable objectives. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was applicable, denying exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the trust's activities, particularly running a working women's hostel and canteen, were commercial and not incidental to its charitable objectives. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was applicable, denying exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not passed speaking orders and agreed to restore the matters for fresh adjudication. Both parties conceded to this approach.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not passed speaking orders and agreed to restore the matters for fresh adjudication. Both parties conceded to this approach.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not passed speaking orders and agreed to restore the matters for fresh adjudication. Both parties conceded to this approach.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not passed speaking orders and agreed to restore the matters for fresh adjudication. Both parties conceded to this approach.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A at that time. Therefore, the late fees charged were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause' and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay.