Loading ITAT cases…
465 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that the AO recorded reasons for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind, relying on surmises and conjectures. The AO failed to establish a live link between the information received and the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal found that there was no primary adjudication on the issues of agricultural income and cash deposits by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rental income should be taxed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession', aligning with the Chennai Properties case. However, the disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(ia) was to be reconsidered after verification from the interest recipients.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal found it irregular to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and then also decide on merits without examining them. The end of justice requires giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the appeal on merits before the CIT(A).
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The delay should have been condoned, and the appeal should have been decided on its merits.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court order was not presented before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider the High Court order and pass a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal restored the issue of charity/donation addition to the AO for fresh verification, holding that the onus should not be solely on the assessee. The addition for interest on late payment of government dues was upheld.
The Tribunal decided to remit all appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The CIT(A) is to consider all orders passed by the NCLT and superior forums.
The Tribunal held that exempt income from dividend and PPF interest, when disclosed separately and deducted from business income, cannot be added back as business income. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that there was no effective representation from the assessee before the Assessing Authority. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the assessment was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and no objection from the revenue.
The Tribunal held that if there is a legal disability or physical impossibility in creating a tenancy, rent cannot be considered 'receivable', and thus notional rent cannot be taxed. Regarding the jewellery, the Tribunal found the relief granted by the AO to be reasonable.
The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 80IC, the manufacturing plant must be situated in a notified area. As the assessee's plant was undisputedly not in such an area, the deduction was rightly denied.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order does not survive in view of the earlier order quashing the assessment. However, the Revenue can seek recall of this order based on the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation order for the delayed filing of Form 10B. The assessee was directed to provide the condonation order to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the advance was given out of commercial expediency as the subsidiary was formed as an SPV due to bid stipulations. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had sufficient own funds and that similar advances in prior years were accepted, thus allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271E should not be imposed if there is a reasonable cause for the contravention of Section 269T. Considering the facts and judicial precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the new property was jointly purchased and owned with the son, and a significant portion of the payment originated from the son's income, restricting the Section 54 exemption to 50% was justified. The lower authorities' orders were found to be correct.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s acceptance of the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent presentation error was not sufficiently supported by evidence. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the Section 263 order, which formed the basis of the current appeals, had indeed been quashed by the ITAT in a previous proceeding. Therefore, the present appeals no longer had a valid foundation.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the AO's observations from the remand report. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all relevant reports and submissions.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits being from opening balance and withdrawals to be false. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found no justification for the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous order in a similar case. The Tribunal then referred to its own prior decision in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma, which had set aside similar issues to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessable value determined by customs authorities for duty calculation is not necessarily the purchase value and does not automatically imply unaccounted purchase by the assessee. The CIT(A) correctly considered the remand report and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which considered subsequent amendments and the Supreme Court's ruling, is binding. Therefore, the interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous order in a similar case. The Tribunal then referred to its own prior decision in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma, which had set aside similar issues to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 154 as the issue of whether an under-construction property constituted a 'purchase' within the relevant period was debatable. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the possession of the property was handed over within three years of the transfer, satisfying the conditions for exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous order in a similar case. The Tribunal then referred to its own prior decision in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma, which had set aside similar issues to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It noted that the assessee's parent company, Unitech Limited, was under insolvency proceedings and a moratorium had been granted, which included the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Section 263 order, which formed the basis of the current appeals, had indeed been quashed by the ITAT in a previous proceeding. Therefore, the present appeals no longer had a valid foundation.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESIC is the employer's income, and deduction is allowed only if deposited before the due date as per the respective Acts. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was found squarely applicable.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to appear before the Tribunal or provide any material to controvert the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated belatedly and were barred by limitation under Section 275 of the Act. The order of penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order no longer existed, the revisional proceedings based on it were invalid and the revisional order was bad in law. Therefore, the revisional order was quashed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to process the assessee's application regarding buy-back tax and interest on refund, allowing the deletion of the addition on interest on refund as it was taxed twice. The Tribunal also directed the AO to expeditiously process the rectification application for granting credit of self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the CIT(A) correctly observed that the AO lacked cogent material to reject the assessee's DCF valuation. The assessee was entitled to choose the higher of the prescribed methods for fair market value determination.