Loading ITAT cases…
306 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses due to lack of evidence. However, it ruled that the lands in question were agricultural and therefore exempt from capital gains tax, consequently allowing the wealth tax appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to cooperate and make submissions before the CIT(A) despite multiple notices and a previous direction from the ITAT. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO stands confirmed as per the earlier directions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of 'dumb documents' like loose sheets without corroborative evidence. It also found that investments in property were duly explained and loan creditors' creditworthiness was not properly doubted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the cash deposits, finding that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source through cash flow statements. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses due to lack of evidence. However, it ruled that the lands in question were agricultural and therefore exempt from capital gains tax, consequently allowing the wealth tax appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses due to lack of evidence. However, it ruled that the lands in question were agricultural and therefore exempt from capital gains tax, consequently allowing the wealth tax appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of CBDT guidelines, as the notice under Section 143(2) was issued on an invalid return. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee has a right to a proper hearing, they cannot subvert legal procedures through non-compliance. To ensure substantial justice, one more opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the assessee to file a fresh application.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 35D, finding that the lower authorities misunderstood the facts regarding the expenditure and its amortization. The issue of MAT credit was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal, noting that the orders of the lower authorities were ex-parte, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard based on the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. Adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a 5% estimation of turnover would be a reasonable estimate for the assessee's income, considering the nature of business and comparable cases. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 5% of the turnover, similar to other years.
The tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-banking entity, could not claim a deduction for bad debts merely through a provision entry after April 1, 1989. The claim was disallowed as it did not meet the statutory stipulations for write-off.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses due to lack of evidence. However, it ruled that the lands in question were agricultural and therefore exempt from capital gains tax, consequently allowing the wealth tax appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided reasons for non-compliance before them and, adhering to principles of natural justice, decided to grant one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that purchasing a vehicle in the trustee's name using trust funds to save on taxes and insurance, without proving its use for charitable activities, is a violation. The denial of exemption was justified.
The Tribunal held that a 5% estimation of turnover would be a reasonable estimate for the assessee's income, considering the nature of business and comparable cases. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 5% of the turnover, similar to other years.
The Tribunal held that a 5% estimation of turnover would be a reasonable estimate for the assessee's income, considering the nature of business and comparable cases. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 5% of the turnover, similar to other years.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition for AY 2016-17 as the amount withdrawn from an AOP, which was deposited during demonetization, pertained to AY 2017-18. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should reconsider the application in the interest of natural justice. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(E) with all required documents.
The Tribunal held that a 5% estimation of turnover would be a reasonable estimate for the assessee's income, considering the nature of business and comparable cases. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 5% of the turnover, similar to other years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the charitable nature of the assessee and lack of negligence on its part. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was restored to the file of the AO in a previous assessment year for re-adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issue back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The tribunal held that the appellate orders passed after the assessee's death are a nullity. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to implead the legal heirs and pass fresh orders.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,96,587/- towards unproved sundry creditors. It also directed that estimated business income should be set off against certain investments and sundry creditors. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid as the assessee had misled the AO by misclassifying the asset. The revaluation of a 'project advance' (non-current asset) cannot be treated as stock-in-trade and thus the amount added by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had availed the opportunity and received registration under Section 12A for five assessment years.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax, as the condition for paying advance tax did not arise. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,96,587/- towards unproved sundry creditors. It also directed that estimated business income should be set off against certain investments and sundry creditors. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without providing an opportunity for hearing. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a proper hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notice from the CIT(A), leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notice from the CIT(A), leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay without providing an opportunity for hearing. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the charitable nature of the assessee and lack of negligence on its part. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,96,587/- towards unproved sundry creditors. It also directed that estimated business income should be set off against certain investments and sundry creditors. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,96,587/- towards unproved sundry creditors. It also directed that estimated business income should be set off against certain investments and sundry creditors. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee were not taxable in India as they did not 'make available' technical knowledge or expertise to the Indian group companies, as required by the India-USA DTAA. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,96,587/- towards unproved sundry creditors. It also directed that estimated business income should be set off against certain investments and sundry creditors. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,96,587/- towards unproved sundry creditors. It also directed that estimated business income should be set off against certain investments and sundry creditors. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,96,587/- towards unproved sundry creditors. It also directed that estimated business income should be set off against certain investments and sundry creditors. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of Section 35(2AB) deduction to the AO for re-examination based on earlier Tribunal directions. The additional ground regarding Section 10AA deduction was admitted and remitted to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of depreciation on temporary structures to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The issue of disallowance of interest expense was also set aside to the AO for fresh verification. Grounds related to delayed remittance of employee's PF/ESI contributions were dismissed in favor of the Revenue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside for de novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become academic because the assessee had filed a fresh application within the extended time limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as academic.