Loading ITAT cases…
48 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69A could not be sustained as they were contrary to the DVO's report, which is binding on the revenue. However, penalties under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited were upheld due to the lack of reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69A could not be sustained as they were contrary to the DVO's report, which is binding on the revenue. However, penalties under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited were upheld due to the lack of reasonable cause.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeals. The matters were sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeals. The matters were sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeals. The matters were sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging potential communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69A could not be sustained as they were contrary to the DVO's report, which is binding on the revenue. However, penalties under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited were upheld due to the lack of reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69A could not be sustained as they were contrary to the DVO's report, which is binding on the revenue. However, penalties under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited were upheld due to the lack of reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69A could not be sustained as they were contrary to the DVO's report, which is binding on the revenue. However, penalties under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited were upheld due to the lack of reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69A could not be sustained as they were contrary to the DVO's report, which is binding on the revenue. However, penalties under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited were upheld due to the lack of reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 41(1) are applicable only in cases of actual cessation or remission, not deemed ones. Admissions made during search proceedings do not hold significance without actual evidence. Therefore, the assessees' appeals were allowed in part, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 41(1) are applicable only in cases of actual cessation or remission, not deemed ones. Admissions made during search proceedings do not hold significance without actual evidence. Therefore, the assessees' appeals were allowed in part, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 41(1) are applicable only in cases of actual cessation or remission, not deemed ones. Admissions made during search proceedings do not hold significance without actual evidence. Therefore, the assessees' appeals were allowed in part, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 41(1) are applicable only in cases of actual cessation or remission, not deemed ones. Admissions made during search proceedings do not hold significance without actual evidence. Therefore, the assessees' appeals were allowed in part, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure justice, acknowledging potential communication issues with the virtual hearing mechanism.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on doubted purchases, when the original reason for reopening was a sale transaction, was not permissible. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal, rendering the consequential assessment order bad in law.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum addition, which was the basis for the penalty, is deleted, the penalty cannot survive. The penalty proceedings are dependent on the existence of the quantum addition.
The Tribunal found the penalty levied at 200% to be unduly harsh and that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's case under Section 270A(6). The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the case based on Section 270A(6).
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of Section 149(1)(b) read with Section 151 of the Act, as the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years and involving more than Rs. 50 lakhs should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr. CCIT) and not the Principal Commissioner (PCIT). This constituted an incurable jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal found that the challenges to the AO's jurisdiction were adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). However, the issue of the differential amount was not crystal clear, necessitating re-examination.
The Tribunal held that it has the power to consider revised claims, unlike the AO who is bound by the original return. Therefore, the assessee's revised computation for LTCG should be considered.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order cannot be passed against a non-existent entity. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the assessment order was set aside and quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed GST payment is allowable as business expenditure, following the Supreme Court's decision. It also held that corporate guarantee commission income should not be taxed as the parties agreed not to charge commission.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunities to the assessee to explain its case and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the assessee's explanation regarding agricultural income and cash deposits. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the provision regarding the time limit for filing the application under section 80G is directory and not mandatory. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the application afresh.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10IC should not deprive the assessee of the benefit under Section 115BAA, citing previous judgments. The appeal concerning the delay in filing before the CIT(A) was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the site restoration expenses as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). It also directed the deletion of interest levied under Sections 234A and 234B, as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) covered the total tax liability.
The Tribunal allowed the site restoration expenses as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). It also directed the deletion of interest levied under Sections 234A and 234B, as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) covered the total tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10IC should not deprive the assessee of the benefit under Section 115BAA, citing previous judgments. The appeal concerning the delay in filing before the CIT(A) was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the site restoration expenses as a business expenditure under Section 37(1). It also directed the deletion of interest levied under Sections 234A and 234B, as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) covered the total tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as being in default for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments. This was because the payments were made during the period when an interim order from the Madras High Court was in force, restraining the assessee from deducting tax at source.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than specific incriminating material to make the addition. There was no actual evidence presented to support the allegation of on-money payment.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed on a deceased person is void ab initio. Following various High Court decisions, the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment framed were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the additions were made on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the Tribunal was unable to agree with the findings of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding them crucial for deciding the issue. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for examination of these evidences.
The Tribunal found that the additions were made on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the Tribunal was unable to agree with the findings of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced limit for leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) should be applied retrospectively, following the beneficial nature of the amendment and various coordinate bench decisions. The assessee is entitled to the enhanced exemption limit.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10-IE is directory and not mandatory, and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned. The assessee's claim for taxation under Section 115BAC was allowed.
The Tribunal found no error in the reopening of the assessment. However, due to crucial evidence (invoices for agricultural product sales) submitted by the assessee for the first time, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal acknowledged that purchases from unregistered dealers were possible and the assessee's sales were not questioned. Considering the facts and judicial precedents, a lumpsum disallowance of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A), set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee another chance to present facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A), set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee another chance to present facts.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were mistakenly attributed to the assessee due to a PAN linkage error. The deposits were already accounted for by Nalanda College of Education under Usha Society of Human Affairs.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to participate in the proceedings and file necessary details.
The Tribunal, in the larger interest, granted one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that a revised return filed within the prescribed time under Section 139(5) supersedes the original return. The delay in filing Form 10-IEA was condoned, and the assessee was permitted to opt for the 'Old Tax Regime' in the revised return.