Loading ITAT cases…
327 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT extended the timeline for such applications, and the assessee filed a fresh application. Therefore, the appeal became academic.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the artificial bifurcation of turnover was illogical. It directed the AO to re-compute the income by estimating it at 10% of the admitted turnover as business income.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing 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, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's long-standing small business and the possibility of savings. It reduced the additions to Rs. 2 Lacs, deleting the balance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) upon payment of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing 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 confirmed the disallowance of interest expenses, holding that the subsidiary entity should have borne the financial burden as it used the loan for its business. The Tribunal found no established business nexus to justify the assessee bearing the interest.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence without confronting it to the AO and did not adjudicate on the issue of interest disallowance for the 'exit for investor' portion. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was based on an erroneous assumption of facts regarding the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 148. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to logo charges and depot service charges, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on the penalty issue, considering the ratio of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on the penalty issue, considering the ratio of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the peak credit amount should be treated as business income, as it was the assessee's only source of income and the notebooks exclusively pertained to this business. Separate additions for interest and miscellaneous receipts were deleted as they were already accounted for in the peak credit.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that entire cash deposits could not be treated as unaccounted income when there were payments to creditors. It estimated profit on sales turnover instead of peak credit.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity for a hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on the penalty issue, considering the ratio of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal due to the death of the Karta and restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The legal heir was directed to provide the required information and substantiate the case.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest expenses, holding that the subsidiary entity should have borne the financial burden as it used the loan for its business. The Tribunal found no established business nexus to justify the assessee bearing the interest.
The CIT(A) held that the loan was advanced for commercial expediency and business purposes, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in SA Builders. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction for interest on property loans when rental income was accepted as business income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the nature of losses on sale of investments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction for interest on property loans when rental income was accepted as business income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the nature of losses on sale of investments.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the society is attributable to its business operations as a cottage industry and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(ii). The lower authorities erred in disallowing this deduction.
The Tribunal held that while exemption under Section 11 was rightly denied due to lack of registration, the Assessing Officer should have allowed set-off of genuine expenses incurred in connection with earning the income, treating it as normal business income.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the CPC's omission and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The delay was condoned, and the case was remitted to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's power under Section 263 cannot be exercised to direct a second investigation without finding an error in the original order.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the file back to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue based on the decision of the PCIT on the assessee's condonation petition for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction for interest on property loans when rental income was accepted as business income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the nature of losses on sale of investments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction for interest on property loans when rental income was accepted as business income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to verify the nature of losses on sale of investments.
The Tribunal held that given the assessee's historical profit margin of 4%, it was appropriate to apply this rate to the additional turnover. The AO was directed to compute the profit accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of foreign remittances, supported by documentary evidence and confirmations from foreign entities. The remittances were considered income earned outside India and not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of foreign remittances, supported by documentary evidence and confirmations from foreign entities. The remittances were considered income earned outside India and not taxable in India.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision and in light of additional evidence, remanded the transfer pricing issue to the TPO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of business promotion expenses was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT validly assumed revision jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court and other High Court decisions regarding the disallowance of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI not paid by the due date.
The Tribunal held that the net surplus of the assessee was less than 20% of its total receipts, and therefore, the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) could not be rejected under the second proviso to Section 2(15). The lower authorities' orders were found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of applying the disclosed gross profit rate to suppressed sales was more practical and realistic. The Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s methods were rejected.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not maintain quantitative stock details and its sales turnover was declining. While acknowledging the audited books, the Tribunal deemed profit estimation necessary and reduced the estimated profit to 2% on total sales turnover and other income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, offering income on a presumptive basis, was not required to maintain elaborate books of account. The cash deposits were found to be out of the opening cash balance and made before demonetization, and the LIC payment was a loan repayment. The post-demonetization cash deposits were also covered by the assessee's available cash balance.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding jewellery addition, deleting the addition based on CBDT circulars. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted penalties as the additions were either deleted or partly allowed in quantum appeals.
The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed based on the full value of consideration received as per Section 48, and the AO cannot substitute it with a fair market value unless specifically provided by law. The addition made by the AO was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 50D is applicable only when the sale consideration is not ascertainable or determinable. Since the sale value was clearly determinable in this case, the AO's action was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of applying the disclosed gross profit rate to suppressed sales was more practical and realistic. The Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s methods were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of applying the disclosed gross profit rate to suppressed sales was more practical and realistic. The Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s methods were rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding jewellery addition, deleting the addition based on CBDT circulars. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted penalties as the additions were either deleted or partly allowed in quantum appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding jewellery addition, deleting the addition based on CBDT circulars. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted penalties as the additions were either deleted or partly allowed in quantum appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding jewellery addition, deleting the addition based on CBDT circulars. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted penalties as the additions were either deleted or partly allowed in quantum appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding jewellery addition, deleting the addition based on CBDT circulars. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted penalties as the additions were either deleted or partly allowed in quantum appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding jewellery addition, deleting the addition based on CBDT circulars. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted penalties as the additions were either deleted or partly allowed in quantum appeals.