Loading ITAT cases…
145 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal directed the assessee to demonstrate before the AO that they fulfilled the conditions of the first proviso to Section 201(1) and were not an assessee-in-default. The AO was asked to verify the claim and re-adjudicate.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments were not the assessee's expenditure as they were collected on behalf of the distributor. Furthermore, the Tribunal found business expediency in making the cash payments, making Section 40A(3) inapplicable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. It allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of TDS disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the recipient had disclosed and paid tax on the income. The issue regarding reopening of assessment under Section 147 was dismissed as not raised before the CIT(A) in the second round.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was invalid because the issues flagged by the Principal Commissioner were beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer was bound by CBDT instructions not to travel beyond the selected issues in limited scrutiny cases.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee stated that the consequential assessment proceedings did not result in any additions, making the revision proceedings moot.
The Tribunal held that merely because the Assessing Officer did not elaborate on the issue in the final assessment order, it does not make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The acceptance of the assessee's reply by the AO led to the dropping of the proposed addition.
The Tribunal held that transfer charges paid to the housing society were supported by evidence and should not be added. It also held that expenses for air conditioners, curtains, and light fittings were essential for habitability and should be allowed as cost of improvement.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous as it was based on detailed inquiry and relevant case laws, including the assessee's own case. Therefore, Section 263 was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) could not restrict the deduction without providing valid reasons. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a cash flow statement and bank withdrawals, to explain the cash deposits. The AO and CIT(A) had rejected the explanation without proper reasoning regarding the utilization of available cash.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) because the return of income was not filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 139(1), and the condonation application was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not establish how the delay in payment amounted to under-reporting of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous based on a VSVS application. The penalty proceedings under Section 271B are independent of the quantum addition settled under VSVS.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after considering interest certificates and other details furnished by the assessee, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) which directed the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the sale consideration in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable when acquired as part of a business undertaking in a demerger. It also ruled that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income has been earned.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to erroneous professional advice. It then proceeded to adjudicate the revision proceedings initiated by the CIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits, either from partnership firm collections or agricultural income. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed Form 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide corroborative evidence to explain the significant time gap between the alleged gift withdrawal and the cash deposits. The inconsistent stands taken by the assessee at different stages further weakened his claim.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to erroneous professional advice. It then proceeded to adjudicate the revision proceedings initiated by the CIT.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable when acquired as part of a business undertaking in a demerger. It also ruled that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income has been earned.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable when acquired as part of a business undertaking in a demerger. It also ruled that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income has been earned.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable when acquired as part of a business undertaking in a demerger. It also ruled that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income has been earned.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to erroneous professional advice. It then proceeded to adjudicate the revision proceedings initiated by the CIT.
The Tribunal held that the relationship between the hospital and consultant doctors was not employer-employee, and payments were professional fees subject to TDS under Section 194J. It also held that AMC charges for medical equipment maintenance were works contract payments under Section 194C, not fees for technical services under Section 194J.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the land sold was agricultural land beyond 8 kms from the municipality. Therefore, the capital gains computation was sustained, and the assessee's grounds were rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding CFS charges. Since the assessee did not appear or provide justification, the revision order was sustained.
The Tribunal held that returns filed under Section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under Section 139(1) for the purpose of eligibility for deductions under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, the rider in Section 80AC regarding timely filing does not apply to returns filed under Section 153A. The issue regarding the certificate was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that returns filed under Section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under Section 139(1) for the purpose of eligibility for deductions under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, the rider in Section 80AC regarding timely filing does not apply to returns filed under Section 153A. The issue regarding the certificate was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that corpus donations received with specific directions do not constitute annual receipts for the purpose of Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, the assessee's aggregate annual receipts were below the prescribed limit, making it eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 10CCB is procedural and not substantive. Since the audit report was filed before the completion of assessment and the original return was filed within the due date, the assessee is entitled to the deduction.
The ITAT held that belated payments of employee PF & ESI contributions cannot be allowed as deduction, upholding the disallowance. However, the ITAT held that adjustments for Chapter VI-A deductions like 80JJAA cannot be made under section 143(1)(a) for AY 2018-19, directing deletion of this addition.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings, and the issue of FDs and their source was considered during the assessment, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations received with specific directions do not constitute annual receipts for the purpose of Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, the assessee's aggregate annual receipts were below the prescribed limit, making it eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF & ESI for late deposit, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that returns filed under Section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under Section 139(1) for the purpose of eligibility for deductions under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, the rider in Section 80AC regarding timely filing does not apply to returns filed under Section 153A. The issue regarding the certificate was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the significant delay and non-compliance with defect notices. The assessee's counsel then prayed for withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to reasonable cause and was neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271F was not liable to be imposed.
The Tribunal held that returns filed under Section 153A are to be treated as returns filed under Section 139(1) for the purpose of eligibility for deductions under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, the rider in Section 80AC regarding timely filing does not apply to returns filed under Section 153A. The issue regarding the certificate was remitted to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that if the assessee provides a plausible explanation for the excess stock being from current year business income, it cannot be treated as unexplained investment. The additional income should be assessed under the head 'profits and gains of business and profession'.
The Tribunal held that the cultivation and sale of white button mushrooms is an agricultural activity, and the income derived is agricultural income exempt from tax. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the cultivation and sale of white button mushrooms is an agricultural activity, and the income derived is agricultural income exempt from tax. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that M/s. Mayan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was a genuine entity that had filed income tax returns and was assessed by the department. The sub-contract payments were made through banking channels and supported by evidence.