Loading ITAT cases…
294 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not adequately consider the assessee's explanations and reconciliations regarding the net worth method. Therefore, the appeals were set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making further estimations of undisclosed income based on the same seized materials, especially when the assessee had already offered undisclosed income. The Tribunal found the estimation of higher sale rates for all plots to be arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making further estimations of undisclosed income based on the same seized materials, especially when the assessee had already offered undisclosed income. The Tribunal found the estimation of higher sale rates for all plots to be arbitrary.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the VSVS scheme and the department had issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making further estimations of undisclosed income based on the same seized materials, especially when the assessee had already offered undisclosed income. The Tribunal found the estimation of higher sale rates for all plots to be arbitrary.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. Subsequently, upon the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to availing the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme', the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal felt that the assessee should be given another opportunity to defend the additions before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed interest on loans taken from India Bulls and Reliance Home Finance for business needs, and from Kotak Mahindra Bank for a vehicle used in business. However, the issue regarding loans from Central Bank of India and Federal Bank, where properties were claimed to be used for business, was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the directions of the Supreme Court. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the 7-day delay.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the CIT(A) rightly allowed deductions for the cost of acquisition and construction expenses. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient corroborative evidence, including photocopies of bills, to justify the expenses, even if original bills were not available.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot enhance the cost of acquisition by adopting the DVO's higher valuation when the assessee had already adopted a lower valuation supported by a registered valuer. Regarding the Section 54F deduction, the Tribunal found contradictions and remitted the issue back to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion. The facts were already disclosed during the original assessment, and the CAG report merely presented a different interpretation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence not presented to the AO and that the AO had not properly examined the claim. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the consultancy fees were received for professional services, not salary, and allowed expenses against it. It also directed verification of the interest paid deduction against interest income.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of by treating it as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient material to conclude that the genuineness of the trust was in question. The Tribunal restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim that the loan was an advance for procuring land for the company's business. The Tribunal also rejected the argument of setting off loans given to the company against the advance received.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's condonation of delay application. It held that the medical condition was not so severe as to prevent the assessee from signing the appeal memo, and the delay was not supported by cogent reasons.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper discussion of the penalty issues. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation regarding the accounting treatment of lease equalization charges, especially in cases of lease foreclosure, needed verification. The AO was directed to re-examine the details submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked a speaking order on the merits of the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied without a specific determination of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the addition was made on an estimated basis and the assessee had offered higher profit, the penalty was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the shared and infrastructure activities were assessable under 'income from other sources', and related expenditures were allowable under Section 57(iii). The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the shared and infrastructure activities were assessable as 'income from other sources', and related expenses were allowable under Section 57(iii). The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the shared and infrastructure activities were assessable under 'income from other sources' and related expenses were deductible under Section 57(iii). The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the purchases were duly accounted for and the bullion was sold to the partnership firm on the same day it was purchased. Therefore, it would not form part of the closing stock or the 'smith issue' book.
The Tribunal held that the shared and infrastructure activities were assessable as 'income from other sources', and related expenses were allowable under Section 57(iii). The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeals.
The assessee paid the penalty amount and requested the appeal to be dropped. The Tribunal, with no objection from the Department, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue was previously raised and directed the AO to consider the payments and rectify the order. The AO was also directed to allow the 15% deduction under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the issue of investment from borrowed funds and its repayment by the assessee's wife was not properly adjudicated. It also found that verification of costs for improvement was not possible at that stage. The matter was remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the mere confirmation of a part of the addition by the CIT(A) does not automatically warrant penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty order did not establish concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper examination of the evidence.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was bad and illegal. The issue was squarely covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, which allowed such payments made within the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and a speaking order.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission paid to doctors, following the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories. The payment was considered a prohibited expense under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as it facilitated the violation of MCI regulations by doctors.
The Tribunal held that the payment of higher interest to directors was revenue neutral as the directors offered the interest income for taxation in their individual hands at a higher tax slab. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary forms for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to recall if the scheme benefits are not availed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while unaccounted income cannot be ruled out, the differences were insignificant and some advances related to group entities. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 50% of the total amount.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee to reply to the enhancement notice. Therefore, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide complete evidence, the declared agricultural income should not be entirely treated as unexplained. A reasonable estimation of agricultural income was made, with the balance being treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before it was not maintainable as the assessee had bypassed the first appellate authority. The assessee was permitted to file an appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide complete evidence, the declared agricultural income should not be entirely treated as unexplained. A reasonable estimation of agricultural income was made, with the balance being treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. Specific issues like disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) were remitted to the AO, while Section 14A disallowances were adjusted based on judicial pronouncements and the sufficiency of own funds.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. Specific issues like disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) were remitted to the AO, while Section 14A disallowances were adjusted based on judicial pronouncements and the sufficiency of own funds.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. Specific issues like disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) were remitted to the AO, while Section 14A disallowances were adjusted based on judicial pronouncements and the sufficiency of own funds.