Loading ITAT cases…
218 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly followed relevant precedents regarding Section 80P, the issue of interest paid to non-members and related TDS provisions was not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly followed relevant precedents regarding Section 80P, the issue of interest paid to non-members and related TDS provisions was not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly followed relevant precedents regarding Section 80P, the issue of interest paid to non-members and related TDS provisions was not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions, finding that the revenue failed to dislodge the evidence presented during remand. However, the assessee's appeal regarding disallowances under Section 40A(3) was dismissed due to lack of proven business exigency.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions, finding that the revenue failed to dislodge the evidence presented during remand. However, the assessee's appeal regarding disallowances under Section 40A(3) was dismissed due to lack of proven business exigency.
The Tribunal held that while search proceedings allow for reopening, assessments must be supported by evidence found during the search. The AO's rejection of books was vague, lacking specific defects or reliance on seized materials.
The Tribunal held that while search proceedings allow for reopening, assessments must be supported by evidence found during the search. The AO's rejection of books was vague, lacking specific defects or reliance on seized materials.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the income at 8% of the total deposits from both bank accounts, acknowledging the assessee's honesty in declaring the accounts.
The Tribunal held that once books of account are rejected and income is estimated, no further additions can be made from the profit and loss account. The cash book showed sufficient cash for demonetization deposits.
The Tribunal held that while search proceedings allow for reopening, assessments must be supported by evidence found during the search. The AO's rejection of books was vague, lacking specific defects or reliance on seized materials.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 7,40,000 as the transactions with Surendra Kumar Panigrahi were accepted in the preceding year. The enhanced salary addition was reduced from Rs. 1,92,000 to Rs. 96,000, acknowledging the salary was for six months.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present documents to the Assessing Officer, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000. The penalty appeal was allowed as the assessment was being reopened.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed before the effective date of the notification empowering the NFAC. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that warranty provisions, when based on scientific calculation and when unutilised portions are offered back as income, are allowable. Similarly, disallowances on installation charges and purchases from the son's concern were deleted as unjustified. However, a disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A was invalid as it did not provide the statutory 7 days' time for compliance. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reconciliation statement and directed the Assessing Officer to verify it. If found correct, the addition should be reduced to Rs. 1,54,965/-.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the duplicate appeal as infructuous. The second appeal was dismissed as defective because the penalty order was not filed, and the assessee failed to cure the defects despite opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A was invalid because it did not mention the specific provisions of Section 270A(9)(c) which were later relied upon by the CIT(A). Consequently, the penalty was quashed.
The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, subject to paying a cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present documents to the Assessing Officer, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000. The penalty appeal was allowed as the assessment was being reopened.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to request a DVO valuation, as they were unaware of the procedure.
The tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the ITAT Bar Association within 60 days.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present details. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the ITAT Bar Association within 60 days.
The Tribunal dismissed the duplicate appeal as infructuous. The second appeal was dismissed as defective because the penalty order was not filed, and the assessee failed to cure the defects despite opportunities.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat the entire bank deposits as the assessee's turnover. It further directed to adopt a net profit of 6% of the turnover, reduce the returned income from this profit, and tax the surplus as additional income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed before the effective date of the notification authorizing the NFAC. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with most notices but failed to produce all documents on the last occasion. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present documents to the Assessing Officer, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000. The penalty appeal was allowed as the assessment was being reopened.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of Section 194A(3) were not considered by the authorities below. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's inability to furnish certain evidence earlier, decided to provide one more opportunity by remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of documents. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate fully with the proceedings.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after examining the submitted documents.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present the required documents and ensure the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence to ensure natural justice, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their documents and ensure the principle of natural justice.