Loading ITAT cases…
294 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the condonation of delay leniently and adjudicate the appeal on merits if admitted.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the delay leniently and adjudicate the appeal on merits if admitted.
The Tribunal held that the AO is not prevented from acting on the DSIR report for R&D expenditure. For expenses relatable to exempt income, the Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income was earned. The issue of reconciliation of Form 26AS was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the condonation petition was not maintainable due to the absence of essential details and a casual approach. Consequently, the appeal could not be admitted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) should not have been solely carried away by the proviso to Section 2(15) and should have first examined the genuineness of the trust's activities. Registration cannot be denied without a finding on genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to file a delay condonation petition with supporting evidence. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly adopted the market value as per Section 50C, as the assessee failed to provide any valid reasons or objections to dispute this valuation before any authority.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the tax amount as per the scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The assessee filed a petition to withdraw the appeal without conceding on merits, citing avoidance of protracted litigation and smallness of tax. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Since this was not done, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, they are not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly adopted the market value as per Section 50C, as the assessee failed to provide any valid reasons or objections to dispute this valuation before any authority.
For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable as it was introduced from AY 2014-15, thus quashing the PCIT's order. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to be correct.
For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not applicable as it was introduced from AY 2014-15, thus quashing the PCIT's order. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not discharged the onus to establish the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. To meet the ends of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to furnish evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed enquiry and verified the salary receipts and bank statements. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 was incorrect and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the condonation of delay leniently and then adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the dates of filing of returns as provided by the ITO (Exemptions) to the CIT(A) and the RTI information received by the assessee. Due to these unclear facts, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objection. However, due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) as it was not based on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the PCIT had violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the assessee a personal hearing despite requests. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of establishing the source of credit with confirmation letters. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4 Lacs was unjustified and had no basis.
The Tribunal estimated a profit of 15% on the cash deposits, treating them as unaccounted sales, thereby partially allowing the appeal on the quantum addition. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices was confirmed, and the appeal related to it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that non-deduction of TDS on job work charges attracts the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that a partnership firm is not an eligible entity to claim deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(i) as it is not a company, consortium, authority, board, corporation, or other body established or constituted under a Central or State Act. The assessee failed to satisfy the applicability clause.
The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the dates of filing of returns as provided by the ITO (Exemptions) to the CIT(A) and the RTI information received by the assessee. Due to these unclear facts, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal estimated a profit of 15% on the cash deposits, treating them as unaccounted sales, thereby partially allowing the appeal on the quantum addition. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices was confirmed, and the appeal related to it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid because the notice issued under Section 274 was defective, as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being levied. This jurisdictional defect rendered the entire penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal estimated a profit of 15% on the cash deposits, treating them as unaccounted sales, thereby partially allowing the appeal on the quantum addition. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices was confirmed, and the appeal related to it was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeals, confirming the disallowances for cash payments and salary expenditure due to lack of substantiation and non-compliance with Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, considering it material to the assessment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reframing the assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeals, confirming the disallowances for cash payments and salary expenditure due to lack of substantiation and non-compliance with Section 40A(3) and Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions on deferred AMC income, finding no legal restriction on changing accounting methods and no relatable expenses to defer. The Tribunal also addressed grounds related to Section 14A disallowance.
While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal granted another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that not all of the assessee's submissions were considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the penalty issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a lenient view should be taken regarding the delay due to the assessee's individual status and adverse medical conditions. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim in the return of income, even if not accepted by the revenue and classified as capital loss, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
The tribunal noted the assessee's negligence but, considering the best judgment assessment, decided to provide another opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not address the issue of borrowed satisfaction and that the assessment was made on a best judgment basis due to the assessee's failure to provide explanations. The case was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a lenient view should be taken regarding the delay due to the assessee's individual status and adverse medical conditions. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form-5 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing based on natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the appeal technically defective but granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal decided that in view of the assessees opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals filed are liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. However, the assessees can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice is caused regarding the settlement.
The High Court ruled that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA, overturning the Tribunal's earlier order. Consequently, the appeal before the ITAT became infructuous.
The Tribunal decided that in view of the assessees opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals filed are liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. However, the assessees can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice is caused regarding the settlement.