Loading ITAT cases…
447 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not obtained the requisite approval from the CCIT, which is a statutory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi), the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified. The pendency of a writ petition before the High Court did not waive this mandatory requirement.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues regarding the validity of notices under Section 148 and Section 143(2). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide these issues denovo.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding that the procedural requirements of Rule 46A were met. Consequently, the grounds of appeal concerning the deletion of deemed dividend additions were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalties based on additions/disallowances that were subsequently set aside or deleted by the Tribunal itself are not sustainable. Regarding short-term capital gains, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of inadvertent omission to be bonafide, granting the benefit of doubt in this penal provision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as no search was initiated. Consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as no search was initiated. Consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only to amounts 'payable' and not 'paid' at the end of the financial year. For unsecured loans, the Tribunal found the source of funds unsubstantiated and upheld the addition.
The Tribunal held that penalties based on additions/disallowances that were subsequently set aside or deleted by the Tribunal itself are not sustainable. Regarding short-term capital gains, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of inadvertent omission to be bonafide, granting the benefit of doubt in this penal provision.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs during the pre-commencement period, when the borrowed funds were inextricably linked to the setting up of the business, is a capital receipt. This income should be set off against pre-operative expenses, not taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as no search was initiated. Consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had a complete non-application of mind in recording the reasons for reassessment, as the fundamental premise of a property sale was incorrect. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as no search was initiated. Consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowances. It found no evidence presented by the revenue to substantiate that the expenses were personal, especially considering the assessee is a juristic person and the expenses contributed to a significant increase in turnover.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, prior to its amendment effective June 1, 2015, did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the late filing fees imposed for periods before this date were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as no search was initiated. Consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of trading additions, stating that ad-hoc additions cannot be made without defects in the books of accounts. Certain other grounds were rendered infructuous or dismissed as general.
The Tribunal held that penalties based on additions/disallowances that were subsequently set aside or deleted by the Tribunal itself are not sustainable. Regarding short-term capital gains, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of inadvertent omission to be bonafide, granting the benefit of doubt in this penal provision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as no search was initiated. Consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding that the procedural requirements of Rule 46A were met. Consequently, the grounds of appeal concerning the deletion of deemed dividend additions were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of trading additions, stating that ad-hoc additions cannot be made without defects in the books of accounts. Certain other grounds were rendered infructuous or dismissed as general.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of account. The decline in net profit was due to extraordinary items like losses on incomplete contracts and increased depreciation, which were duly accounted for.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was relevant and should be considered by the CIT(Exemptions) for granting registration. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider this evidence on its merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the omission of rental income for nine months was a bona fide mistake or human error, as the assessee promptly revised the return upon being notified. Therefore, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the cash found was sufficiently explained by the family members, who were assessed to tax and had provided supporting documentation. The Assessing Officer had not brought any material to contradict these explanations.
The Tribunal, following its previous order on similar facts, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with specific directions.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on suspicion and without material on record, making it bad in law. Furthermore, the ITAT had previously held that the firms were not benami, invalidating the basis for reassessment.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding depreciation on UPS, following High Court precedents. For SAR-related issues, the Tribunal relied on its previous decision in a sister concern's case, favoring the assessee. The issue of rental payments was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the assessee's book results and making additions based on a seller's valuation report without proper examination. The Tribunal also noted issues with the opportunity provided to the assessee and the admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A as no search was initiated. Consequently, all proceedings and assessment orders under Section 153A were quashed.
As no one appeared for the appellant-assessee on multiple hearing dates and the notices were returned unserved, the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the appeal in default.