Loading ITAT cases…
455 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender, tracing the source of funds up to three stages back. The Tribunal found that the revenue had not brought any contrary evidence to suggest unaccounted money infusion.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO was void ab initio as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated for. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, allowing the assessee to produce further evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not maintainable as the assessee was not a habitual defaulter and the surrender was made solely to buy peace, not indicating concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass fresh assessment orders after verifying the original returns and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the procedure followed by the CIT(A) was unclear regarding post-January 2016 notices. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to ensure a fair hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's estimation of income, noting the assessee's failure to substantiate its expenses and claims. The claim for deduction under Section 80P was also not considered due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass fresh assessment orders after verifying the original returns and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in terms of statutory limits and, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to participate fully, and the CIT(A) was given liberty to pass an order on merits if the assessee abused the trust.
The Tribunal found that the seized receipts matched the assessee's ledger accounts and the repayment details. Therefore, the addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the departmental appeal was less than Rs. 50 lacs. As no exceptions were brought to its notice, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked clarity regarding the assessee's awareness of additions and the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of both the delay condonation and the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded, the penalty order also does not survive at this stage. The penalty order is therefore remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide any tangible material to support the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged its onus and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 for both residential properties, even if geographically distant. The amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, was noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 even if the investment is made in more than one residential property, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A. The AO was directed to re-verify the calculation after excluding investments with taxable income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the matter and had not filed a condonation petition for the delay. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction. The assessee, engaged in investment banking, incurred these expenses to procure business which materialized in subsequent years.
The Tribunal found that the issues in dispute required re-examination at the Assessing Officer's level. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the issues in dispute required re-examination at the Assessing Officer's level. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to discharge their onus to prove the genuineness of the gifts. The failure to produce donors, coupled with the donors' low income and inability to establish natural love and affection, made the gifts against human probability.
The Tribunal held that since the societies were engaged in imparting education with charitable objects and their activities were found to be genuine, they were entitled to registration. Registration was directed to be granted from the date of application.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which prescribes late filing fees, was brought into the statute with effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, no fee could be levied for a period prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation as the delay was not adequately explained or condoned. The assessee did not file a condonation application or remove defects in the existing one.
The Tribunal held that sales tax and excise duty should not be included in the total turnover for Section 80HHC deduction, and royalty and technical guidance fees are revenue in nature. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to lack of satisfaction by the AO.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it essential for substantiating claims. The issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim. The AO's satisfaction is mandatory before resorting to disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and that the Supplementary Deed was essential for deciding the issue. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the societies were engaged in imparting education with charitable objects. Since their activities were found to be genuine and no adverse comments were made in assessment orders, they were entitled to registration.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 3.50 crore sum, received in AY 2005-06, could not be added under Section 68 in AY 2011-12 as it was not received in the relevant year. The Rs. 7 lakh sum was an advance paid in AY 2010-11 and returned, thus Section 68 was not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a previous ruling for the preceding assessment year. It held that investments in land and flats for establishing a university are permissible under Section 11(5)(x) of the Income Tax Act and not considered real estate operations. The Tribunal also allowed the carry forward of losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to discharge their onus to prove the genuineness of the gifts. The failure to produce donors, coupled with the donors' low income and inability to establish natural love and affection, made the gifts against human probability.
The Tribunal held that the TPO did not carry out the exercise of determining the arm's length price in accordance with the law. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings as null and void, finding that the AO failed to prove the valid service of the Section 148 notice on the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the notice was sent to an incorrect address and service was not substantiated.
The ITAT set aside the issue of bad debt provision to the Assessing Officer to examine revised accounts, and the issue of TDS disallowance to the Assessing Officer to examine Form 15G/15H submissions. General grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity was not provided by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of director's remuneration due to lack of statutory approval. It also confirmed disallowances for cash expenses, write-off of staff advances, and cash deposits in the bank account due to lack of supporting evidence and explanations from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the show cause notice and penalty order do not specify on which limb of the section the penalty is initiated. The AO had not struck off either charge in the notice.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to search for the return filed by the assessee. If the return is found, the AO is to decide the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. If the return is not found, the addition will be confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by a previous decision of the ITAT, which allowed similar deductions for cooperative societies. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in issuing the notice under Section 148 and proceeding with the assessment. The addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the lower sale consideration declared.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material unearthed during a search, especially when the original assessment was completed. Since the additions were made based on inquiries during the assessment and not on seized material, they were not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s enhancement of income, finding that the expenditure of Rs. 77,99,100/- was not substantiated with corresponding proof. The assessee failed to provide explanations before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to discharge their onus to prove the genuineness of the gifts. The failure to produce donors, coupled with the donors' low income and inability to establish natural love and affection, made the gifts against human probability.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment when rectification proceedings under Section 154 were pending on the same issue was not sustainable. Consequently, the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 and the consequential order were set aside.