Loading ITAT cases…
204 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the CA's advice and supporting case law. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal modified the PCIT's order, directing the AO to re-do the assessment after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, rather than outright denying the relief.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19 related issues. It held that the assessee had previously obtained registration under Section 12AA and mistakenly filed a fresh application after amending the trust deed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of 20% profit was not justified with proper reasons or comparable cases. While the assessee also failed to justify the declared loss, the Tribunal reduced the estimated profit to 10% of the total turnover.
The tribunal noted that the impugned issues for both assessment years were settled by the assessee under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme (VSVS). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the denial of deduction for belated filing was legally sound under Section 80AC(ii), the assessee had filed a petition before the CBDT for condonation of delay. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication pending the outcome of the CBDT petition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable because it was filed during the moratorium period and the company was subsequently ordered for liquidation, with the Revenue's claim rejected by the liquidator. The Cross-Objection was also dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that if depositors submit valid Form 15G/15H declarations within the financial year, TDS deduction on interest payments does not arise. The AO should re-examine the assessee's claim in light of these forms.
The Tribunal, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P. The interest income earned from deposits with a co-operative bank by a co-operative society is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19. For the main issue of turnover difference and related expenses, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with additional evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the grounds challenging the validity of the notice and penalty proceedings. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. It confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of profit on the deficit stock.
The tribunal noted that the impugned issues for both assessment years were settled by the assessee under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme (VSVS). Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P. The interest income earned from deposits with a co-operative bank by a co-operative society is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that sales incentives received by the assessee, even if subject to TDS under Section 194H, are intrinsically linked to sales and should be included in business turnover for Section 44AD. However, interest on fixed deposits is correctly assessed under income from other sources.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly examined whether the income had accrued to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a reasonable cause. The appeal was then admitted for adjudication on its merits.
The Tribunal held that since Form 67 was filed before the return of income was processed and all details were available, the FTC should not have been denied. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an order for non-prosecution, which is not legally tenable. Therefore, the order was set aside and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that merely because payments were in cash, the expenditure could not be deemed bogus without contrary evidence. Since the assessee is a corporate entity and incurred the expenses for business, the disallowance was estimated at 10% and the balance addition was deleted.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The authority was directed to reconsider the condonation of delay in light of the submitted facts and adjudicate on merits if acceptable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271B cannot be levied when the tax audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, considering it a venial technical breach without mala fide intention.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, including medical grounds, were vague and not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the delay was neither convincing nor reasonable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as the Revenue could not establish service of the intimation. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The authority was directed to reconsider the condonation of delay in light of the submitted facts and adjudicate on merits if acceptable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B cannot be levied for a venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, especially when the tax audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of employer's contribution to PF and ESI to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of payment dates. The disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI was upheld based on a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals because the assessee's reasons for the delay, particularly the medical grounds, were not supported by any evidence and were considered neither convincing nor reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay, including medical grounds, were vague and not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the delay was neither convincing nor reasonable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as the Revenue could not establish service of the intimation. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing Form 10B, citing reasonable cause and CBDT circulars. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption claimed under Section 11.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the sources of these deposits, even when given an opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that no fees under Section 234E could be levied for any period prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A allowing such levy was effective from that date. The Assessing Officer was directed to revise the demand.
The Tribunal held that the land remained agricultural based on purchase and sale deeds, revenue records (Patta, Adangal extracts), and the presence of trees, despite no agricultural income being reported. The Revenue failed to prove the land's character changed.
The Tribunal found that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic and requires objective satisfaction from the AO. The AO did not sufficiently demonstrate other expenditures attributable to maintaining investment portfolios.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was not ready to commence operations. Therefore, preliminary expenses could not be allowed as a deduction under Section 35D.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding retained advances, finding it already accounted for in project profits. For the assessee's appeals, the estimated net profit on land sales was reduced from 30% to 15%.
The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was not ready to commence operations. Therefore, preliminary expenses could not be allowed as a deduction under Section 35D.
The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding retained advances, finding it already accounted for in project profits. For the assessee's appeals, the estimated net profit on land sales was reduced from 30% to 15%.
The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and not supported by sufficient or reasonable cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the need for finality in proceedings and that the law assists the vigilant.
The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and not supported by sufficient or reasonable cause. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the need for finality in proceedings and that the law assists the vigilant.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was not ready to commence operations, therefore, preliminary expenses could not be allowed as a deduction. The earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for a subsequent year was followed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding retained advances, finding it already accounted for in project profits. For the assessee's appeals, the estimated net profit on land sales was reduced from 30% to 15%.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the notice was issued beyond four years, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.
The Tribunal upheld the legal grounds for the search assessment, finding that incriminating material in the form of loose sheets and electronic data was unearthed. However, several issues on merits were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the land remained agricultural based on purchase and sale deeds, revenue records (Patta, Adangal extracts), and the presence of trees, despite no agricultural income being reported. The Revenue failed to prove the land's character changed.