Loading ITAT cases…
279 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act cannot be the sole conclusive evidence for an addition unless supported by corroborative evidence. Since no such corroborative material was presented, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act cannot be the sole conclusive evidence for an addition unless supported by corroborative evidence. Since no such corroborative material was presented, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of bad debts was unjustified as the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the details and found it to be so. The Tribunal also upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for suppressed business income, stating it would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of bad debts was unjustified as the Ld. CIT(A) had examined the details and found it to be so. The Tribunal also upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for suppressed business income, stating it would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to delay in filing. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in filing the appeal, the delay was due to financial liquidity issues. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that while the application was initially filed under a clause that did not allow condonation of delay for Section 80G applications, an amendment to the Act (effective from 01.10.2024) introduced a new clause (iv) which permits such applications. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as filed under the amended clause and decide on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly considered the evidence and had selectively relied on certain documents. The additions were deleted as they were not substantiated by corroborative evidence and potentially attributed to the wrong person.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in filing the appeal, the delay was due to financial liquidity issues. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be deprived of the concessional tax rate due to a procedural lapse in filing Form 10-IC late. The intention to opt for the regime was demonstrated, and the delay was sought to be condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be deprived of the concessional tax rate due to a procedural lapse in filing Form 10-IC late. The intention to opt for the regime was demonstrated, and the delay was sought to be condoned.
The Tribunal accepted additional evidence for transfer pricing adjustments related to support services and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the attribution of mark-up on recovery of expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point.
The Tribunal accepted additional evidence for transfer pricing adjustments related to support services and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the attribution of mark-up on recovery of expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point.
The Tribunal accepted additional evidence for transfer pricing adjustments related to support services and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the attribution of mark-up on recovery of expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point.
The Tribunal accepted additional evidence for transfer pricing adjustments related to support services and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the attribution of mark-up on recovery of expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point.
The Tribunal accepted additional evidence for transfer pricing adjustments related to support services and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the attribution of mark-up on recovery of expenses, dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point.
The Tribunal held that the peak credit in the bank account was Rs. 12,00,000/-. After setting off the sale consideration of agricultural land (Rs. 4,90,000/-) and considering past savings and agricultural holdings, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence for support services and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding contract losses, the Tribunal allowed the reversal of provision as a deduction, subject to verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawal for Pongal Cash Gift does not constitute income in the hands of PACBs, and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194N. The PACBs, acting as Business Correspondents, qualify for exemption. The AO is directed to verify filings and apply the beneficial third proviso to Section 194N.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation due to consultant's lapse. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was explained by the sale of casuarina trees. The intermediaries and the ultimate buyer confirmed the transaction, and the deposit was directly linked to the sale proceeds.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences (audited financials and cash book) filed by the assessee were essential for adjudication. For substantial justice, these were taken on record. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition based on non-compliance by debtors to summons under section 133(6) of the Act. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., it was held that the Revenue did not pursue the matter of examining the source of income of the debtors, and therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after examining the affidavit and the assessee's submission to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should consider the application filed on 27.12.2024 under the newly inserted clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act, as it became effective from 01.10.2024. The application was rejected by the CIT(E) after this amendment took effect.
The Tribunal held that the purpose of Section 12AB is to register trusts with genuine objects and activities, including proposed activities. Accumulating funds for land and building development is considered a proposed activity aligned with the trust's objects.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the AO for denovo assessment. This was done to provide the legal heirs of the deceased assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence regarding the cash deposits, considering principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal. It noted that the AO had not conducted meaningful inquiries into the sources of cash deposits and the CIT(A) had granted relief based on guesswork. The Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without adequate opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-compliance and noted that the Learned CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the case's merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Learned CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to comply, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after being satisfied with the assessee's explanation. Recognizing that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the AO's order was not a speaking order, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's semi-illiterate status and dependence on a tax practitioner. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), which directed the AO to verify if the assessee was a lorry owner eligible for Section 44AE and, if not, to apply the Peak Credit Theory.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of serious objection from the DR. It found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case, focusing instead on non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to furnish the required documents. Consequently, both appeals were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee and noting that the delay was neither willful nor wanton. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to furnish the required documents. Consequently, both appeals were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made necessary inquiries and the issues were decided in the assessee's favor in its own case by a coordinate bench. The PCIT's order was found to be not tenable in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a credit cooperative society, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from deposits with another cooperative bank. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee's non-compliance with notices was noted.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. Since the assessee obtained the audit report well before filing the return of income, the disallowance of the claim was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking the TDS value instead of the sale value to make the disallowance. Material evidence, including profit & loss accounts and Form 26AS, showed a matching of sales values and TDS values for the relevant assessment years, indicating that the details were available to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to adequately explain the source of the entire cash deposit, a portion of it could be explained by cash withdrawals and declared presumptive income. The addition was partially sustained.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal stated that section 263 can only be invoked for a lack of inquiry, not for an inadequate inquiry. The non-mentioning of a specific section did not make the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment included an addition for other income without allowing set-off of revenue expenditure. While the CIT(A) had provided ample opportunities, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to afford one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO after the e-assessment scheme notification were invalid as they contravened the mandatory faceless procedure. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made necessary inquiries and the issues were decided in the assessee's favor in its own case by a coordinate bench. The PCIT's order was found to be not tenable in law.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. Since the assessee obtained the audit report well before filing the return of income, the disallowance of the claim was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a credit cooperative society, is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from deposits with another cooperative bank. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd.
The Tribunal held that non-deposit of sale consideration in the CGAS before filing the return of income is not fatal to claiming deduction under Section 54F, especially when the sale proceeds were utilized for construction within the stipulated period. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of evidence regarding construction expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, who declared income under Section 44AD, was not mandatorily required to maintain regular books of accounts. The month-wise cash sales and deposits demonstrated a plausible cash trail without mismatch, and the increase in sales/deposits was adequately explained by the business nature.