Loading ITAT cases…
110 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was mixed up and did not consider the assessee's specific facts. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence and providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the loans were taken in the preceding assessment year (2016-17) and were carried forward as unsecured loans. Since the loans did not relate to the impugned assessment year (2017-18), the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approvals were unsustainable as they lacked proper application of mind and were not in the prescribed form, citing decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the consequential assessment orders were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approvals were unsustainable as they lacked proper application of mind and were not in the prescribed form. Consequently, the consequential assessment orders were also quashed.
The tribunal noted that the defect in the appeal fee payment was not rectified by the assessee despite a notice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the approvals were unsustainable as they lacked proper application of mind and were not in the prescribed form, citing decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the consequential assessment orders were also quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the approvals were unsustainable as they lacked proper application of mind and were not in the prescribed form, citing decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the consequential assessment orders were also quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as the CIT(A) had deleted significant additions based on the AO's remand report. For the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) through estimation, the assessee was granted another opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the approvals were unsustainable as they lacked proper application of mind and were not in the prescribed form, citing decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the consequential assessment orders were also quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee will be granted an adequate opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the approvals were unsustainable as they lacked proper application of mind and were not in the prescribed form, citing decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the consequential assessment orders were also quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as the CIT(A) had deleted significant additions based on the AO's remand report. For the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) through estimation, the assessee was granted another opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals as the CIT(A) had deleted significant additions based on the AO's remand report. For the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) through estimation, the assessee was granted another opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that the addition for suppressed sales be restricted to 1.51% of the revised undisclosed turnover. However, the addition for violation of Section 40A(3) was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide exceptional reasons for cash payments.
The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing that the addition for suppressed sales be restricted to 1.51% of the revised undisclosed turnover. However, the addition for violation of Section 40A(3) was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide exceptional reasons for cash payments.
The Tribunal held that TDS is applicable when income accrues or is received, not merely on year-end provisions. Since TDS was deducted when the expenses crystallized and paid, and no prejudice was caused to the revenue, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to specifically point out the purpose of fund utilization and could not dislodge the CIT(E)'s findings. A previous order of a coordinate bench, which found 'purpose of the trust' adequate, was not applicable to an order passed under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that TDS is applicable when income accrues or is received, not merely on year-end provisions. Since TDS was deducted when the expenses crystallized and paid, and no prejudice was caused to the revenue, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) had jurisdiction. It found the explanation for the missing vouchers unconvincing due to the lack of supporting evidence and the nature of the vouchers. However, it ruled that ad-hoc disallowances are not permissible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the enhanced exemption limit of Rs. 25,00,000. Therefore, the entire leave encashment amount received by the assessee is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced exemption limit under Section 10(10AA)(ii) is applicable. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the full benefit of the leave encashment received.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed before the effective date of the notification authorizing NFAC to do so. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal noted the smallness of the disallowance and that the expenses were likely incurred in the relevant year and paid subsequently. In the interest of justice, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to technical issues with communication. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC through an intimation under section 143(1) was unsustainable. Consequently, the intimation was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown inability to produce documents earlier and the CIT(A) had issued notices without compliance. However, considering the documents filed in the paper book, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the non-availability of cash, when an employee stated it was with the Managing Director who was not questioned, cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's ruling that interest on FDs in such cases is a capital receipt. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the seized material, an unsigned Excel sheet, and statements from unconnected persons are insufficient to establish that the assessee paid 'on money' for land purchases. The revenue failed to prove the existence of undisclosed income based on the seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the seized material, an unsigned Excel sheet, and statements from unconnected persons are insufficient to establish that the assessee paid 'on money' for land purchases. The revenue failed to prove the existence of undisclosed income based on the seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the seized material, an unsigned Excel sheet, and statements from unconnected persons are insufficient to establish that the assessee paid 'on money' for land purchases. The revenue failed to prove the existence of undisclosed income based on the seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed before the notification authorizing the NFAC to do so was effective. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed before the effective date of the notification authorizing the NFAC, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order and all consequent proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks and nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following the Supreme Court decision in The Mavilyi Service Co.op Bank Ltd. The penalty under Section 270A was quashed due to a defective show-cause notice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after obtaining a valuation report from the DVO, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable when the assessee has not maintained books of account and income is estimated. In the second appeal, it was held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not permissible when the final assessment is concluded with an estimated income.
The Tribunal held that the seized material, an unsigned Excel sheet, and statements from unconnected persons are insufficient to establish that the assessee paid 'on money' for land purchases. The revenue failed to prove the existence of undisclosed income based on the seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the seized material, an unsigned Excel sheet, and statements from unconnected persons are insufficient to establish that the assessee paid 'on money' for land purchases. The revenue failed to prove the existence of undisclosed income based on the seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the seized material, an unsigned Excel sheet, and statements from unconnected persons are insufficient to establish that the assessee paid 'on money' for land purchases. The revenue failed to prove the existence of undisclosed income based on the seized documents.
The Tribunal restored the quantum issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The penalty appeal was dismissed as the quantum issue was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the quantum issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The penalty appeal was dismissed as the quantum issue was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as it predated the notification authorizing NFAC to pass such orders. Consequently, the assessment order and all consequent proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest income from cooperative banks and nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following the Supreme Court decision in The Mavilyi Service Co.op Bank Ltd. The penalty under Section 270A was quashed due to a defective show-cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the increased exemption limit under Section 10(10AA)(ii) is applicable. Therefore, the entire leave encashment received by the assessee is eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and recalcitrant attitude. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessment order passed by the NFAC was found to be invalid as it was passed before the effective date of the authorizing notification, and therefore, it was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the bank had admitted a mistake in linking the PAN to the bank account. Since the bank letters confirming the account's ownership by the proprietor were issued after the assessment and appeal orders, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation.