Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 1 of 4
The assessee's counsel, with instructions from the assessee, prayed for the withdrawal of all the appeals. The Department did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal found that the materials filed by the assessee before it, though not submitted to the lower authorities, were necessary for deciding the issue. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which enables the levy of late filing fees, was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date, even if correction statements were filed later.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which enables the levy of late filing fees, was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date, even if correction statements were filed later.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which enables the levy of late filing fees, was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date, even if correction statements were filed later.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case 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 held that if payments were made on or before the due date, or if the due date fell on a holiday and payment was made on the next working day, the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the evidence.
The assessee's counsel, with instructions from the assessee, prayed for the withdrawal of all the appeals. The Department did not oppose this request.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeals. The revenue did not oppose this request. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which enables the levy of late filing fees, was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date, even if correction statements were filed later.
The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds of shares represented capital gains and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the gains. The protective addition made in the hands of one assessee was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds of shares represented capital gains and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the gains. The protective addition made in the hands of one assessee was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's condonation petition for the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which enables the levy of late filing fees, was introduced with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fees cannot be levied for TDS statements filed prior to this date, even if correction statements were filed later.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the payments were made on or before the due date, considering the General Clauses Act for holidays. If the payment was made on the next day due to a holiday, it should be treated as paid on the due date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not fully and truly disclose all details by showing interest income under 'other liabilities' without explanation. Therefore, reopening of assessment under Section 147 was justified.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21, the due date for filing returns had not expired at the time of the search, so it could not be presumed that the income would not have been disclosed. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AAB was wrongly levied for these years.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some evidence like the Director's NRO account withdrawals and ledger entries, crucial evidence like the company's cash book was missing. The classification of the Director's account under 'trade payables' was also unexplained.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of orders and family disputes. However, the appeals were dismissed as defective because they challenged the AO's 'giving effect' orders instead of the CIT(A)'s original orders.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 after the due date for filing the return of income, but within the extended due date under Section 139(4), is acceptable for claiming Foreign Tax Credit. The AO ought to have considered the Form 67 and allowed the credit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was found to be excessive.
The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds of shares represented capital gains and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the gains. The protective addition made in the hands of one assessee was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's ill health and the Supreme Court's decisions on condonation. It also held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54 for the purchase of a new residential property, as the term 'a residential house' could include multiple units before the 2015 amendment.
The assessee's counsel, with instructions from the assessee, prayed for the withdrawal of all the appeals. The Department did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had considered the relevant documents, including the High Court order approving the merger, during the assessment. Therefore, the PCIT's view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was found to be excessive.
The Tribunal held that if payments were made on or before the due date, or if the due date fell on a holiday and payment was made on the next working day, the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not fully and truly disclose all details by showing interest income under 'other liabilities' without explanation. Therefore, reopening of assessment under Section 147 was justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of orders and family disputes. However, the appeals were dismissed as defective because they challenged the AO's 'giving effect' orders instead of the CIT(A)'s original orders.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not valid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate any fresh or tangible material to justify the reassessment. The CIT(A) had erred in confirming the reopening without proper justification.
The Tribunal found that the materials filed by the assessee before it, though not submitted to the lower authorities, were necessary for deciding the issue. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's explanation of non-receipt of orders and family disputes. However, the appeals were dismissed as defective because they challenged the AO's 'giving effect' orders instead of the CIT(A)'s original orders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 5% of gross receipts, considering it a reasonable view. The Tribunal also found that adding cash deposits separately would amount to double addition, as the 5% estimation already encompassed total receipts.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not provide sufficient time for the assessee to reply, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the revision order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21, the due date for filing returns had not expired at the time of the search, so it could not be presumed that the income would not have been disclosed. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AAB was wrongly levied for these years.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not request a reference to the DVO before the Assessing Officer, the issue was raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to refer the property valuation to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21, the due date for filing returns had not expired at the time of the search, so it could not be presumed that the income would not have been disclosed. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AAB was wrongly levied for these years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the cash payments were made due to business exigency or fell under any exception under Rule 6DD. Therefore, the disallowance made by the authorities below was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21, the due date for filing returns had not expired at the time of the search, so it could not be presumed that the income would not have been disclosed. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271AAB was wrongly levied for these years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 5% of gross receipts, considering it a reasonable view. The Tribunal also found that adding cash deposits separately would amount to double addition, as the 5% estimation already encompassed total receipts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee presented new evidence regarding service tax paid on rent and rent paid to a specific landlord. These evidences were not produced before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and CPC, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to re-adjudicate the issues on merits after the CBDT decides on the assessee's petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representation to the CBDT for condonation of delay in filing the return was pending. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to await the CBDT's decision.
The Tribunal noted contradictions in the assessee's submissions and inconsistencies in the documentary evidence provided, including an antedated gift deed. The Tribunal found that the remand report was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to grant the assessee an opportunity to explain the cash deposits and credits.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on computer software as the assessee failed to provide supporting bills. The disallowance of depreciation on windmill was also upheld as the assessee claimed an incorrect rate. For TDS on advertisement expenditure to Doordarshan, the AO was directed to verify the claim. Disallowances for TDS on rent and audit fees were upheld due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the systematic cash withdrawals from bank accounts were more likely for regular household expenses rather than accumulation for the stated purposes. The Tribunal also confirmed the applicability of Section 115BBE for the assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on computer software as the assessee failed to provide supporting bills. The disallowance of depreciation on windmill was also upheld as the assessee claimed an incorrect rate. For TDS on advertisement expenditure to Doordarshan, the AO was directed to verify the claim. Disallowances for TDS on rent and audit fees were upheld due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the cash deposits as unexplained money of the assessee society. The society had explained the source of the deposits as coming from its members, supported by affidavits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It found that the investment in the subsidiary was made for commercial expediency and was intrinsically linked to the assessee's business operations, thus the loss was a business loss.