Loading ITAT cases…
204 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the registration granted to the assessee trust should be considered retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption claimed under Section 11, reversing the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that since the disallowance was made on an estimated basis and the assessee had provided all details, it cannot be considered as under-reporting of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 270A is unsustainable.
The Tribunal accepted Rs. 4.50 lakhs as explained from the sale of the car, finding no infirmity in the assessee's explanation. However, the addition of Rs. 46,350/- from the jewel loan was confirmed due to lack of documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's condonation petition for the delayed return was pending before the CBDT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO to await the CBDT's decision.
The Tribunal held that a belated filing of return leading to a disallowance falls under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) as an incorrect claim, citing a High Court judgment. However, considering the pending petition before the CBDT for condonation of delay, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the issue de novo after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the audit report was filed shortly after the due date due to a technical glitch in the income tax portal. Therefore, the assessee should be allowed the exemption claim, subject to verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the issue de novo after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the issue de novo after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the issue de novo after providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting it was small and the reasons were reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, remanding the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to await the decision of the CBDT on the condonation petition before deciding the assessee's case.
The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue in light of an amendment to Section 115JA. Following the High Court's decision and the amendment, the Tribunal held that provisions for doubtful debts and advances are to be added back to book profits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. It deleted the addition related to salary income and allowed the issue of unexplained investments in property. However, it confirmed the addition for unexplained cash credits and dismissed the ground related to a deposit from Mrs. Shakila Muralibalan.
The Tribunal set aside the additions for unexplained sundry creditors and unexplained money to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after obtaining evidence. The addition for unexplained agricultural income was partly confirmed, with the Tribunal estimating the income.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of ₹.32,93,571/- as unexplained cash deposits, stating that the assessee failed to explain the source of these funds even before the Tribunal. The reliance on the business turnover argument was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that only Rs. 3.35 lakhs of the cash deposits could be explained by the assessee's declared commission and interest income. The remaining Rs. 9.15 lakhs were confirmed as unexplained.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash withdrawals not entirely credible. It estimated that Rs. 6.00 lakhs could be explained as savings by the parents, while the remaining Rs. 6.50 lakhs was treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal agreed that the income was non-agricultural but allowed a deduction for expenses incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal estimated the income at Rs. 12,00,000/- and deleted the balance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even if the assessee did not prosecute it. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of dividend income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on UPS at 60% and dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal on these issues.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of dividend income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on UPS at 60% and dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal on these issues.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in disposing of the appeal when remand proceedings were still pending before the Assessing Officer. The AO had submitted a remand report on 14.03.2022, but subsequently issued another letter on 30.07.2022, calling upon the assessee to explain various issues remanded by the CIT(A), with a hearing scheduled for 04.08.2022. This clearly indicated that the remand proceedings were ongoing. By disposing of the appeal before the completion of these proceedings, the CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal reasoned that when a case is remanded for verification, sufficient time should be given to both the AO and the assessee to comply with the directions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. It deleted the addition related to salary income and allowed the issue of unexplained investments in property. However, it confirmed the addition for unexplained cash credits and dismissed the ground related to a deposit from Mrs. Shakila Muralibalan.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case and provide explanations for all assessment years.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case and provide explanations for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of dividend income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on UPS at 60% and dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal on these issues.
The Tribunal noted that there were multiple agreements, including a revised JDA dated 06.10.2015, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case and provide explanations for all assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that there were multiple agreements, including a revised JDA dated 06.10.2015, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the assessee's reconciliation of trade receivables and the explanation for cash deposits. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations and cash books, to substantiate the sources of the cash deposits.
The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in the absence of dividend income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on UPS and dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal on certain issues.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the land as a capital asset without proper appreciation of the assessee's claim of it being stock-in-trade. The AO also incorrectly applied Section 50C without considering the assessee's accounting method.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the Section 14A issue and remitted it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of provision for estimated losses on contracts was upheld and dismissed. The denial of brought forward losses was directed to be recalculated by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure should be allowed in the year the TDS was actually remitted, as per the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The AO should have considered the revised return and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that once assessment proceedings are initiated under Section 143(3), the earlier order passed under Section 143(1) merges with it and ceases to be operative. Since the Section 143(3) assessment allowed the deduction, the disallowance made under Section 143(1) cannot survive.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the interest earned by the cooperative society on deposits with another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and proof of income of the investors, to explain the share capital received. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to examine crucial factual aspects, including whether the cash was deposited before or after the demonetization announcement and if it fell under any exceptions provided by the relevant Gazette Notifications.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to recognized provident funds. It further noted that the disallowance was made due to an error in the tax audit report and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the cash credit of Rs. 8,00,000 from one individual as explained, considering his agricultural income. For the other two individuals, it was held that while they claimed to have advanced Rs. 8,00,000 each, their income and land holdings suggested they could not have accumulated such amounts, and thus, Rs. 4,00,000 from each was estimated as explained, with the remaining Rs. 8,00,000 treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues concerning the valuation of equity shares were pending for other assessees. For consistency, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that cash deposits made from petrol sales during the demonetization period were permissible as per the relevant government notifications and thus not unexplained.
The Tribunal noted weaknesses in the evidence provided by the assessee and the AO's analysis. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for re-assessment of the cash deposit.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the assessee fails to avail the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the assessee fails to avail the scheme.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was based on estimation and the assessee offered income on a presumptive basis with most earnings in cash, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.