Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 10 of 19
The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 269SS, which includes 'specified sum' for immovable property transactions, applies only to advances and not to the final sale consideration received at the time of registration of the sale deed. The penalty was therefore not leviable.
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to a wrong email address by both the AO and CIT(A), leading to the denial of a proper opportunity of being heard. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS as per Form 26AS, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Relcom. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the credit after verifying that the sister concern has not claimed the same.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations and documents for the loans and purchases. It observed that the AO had not properly examined the submitted documents and had not given the assessee sufficient opportunity to explain. The Tribunal also noted that the trade payables were towards family members, and their similar replies did not automatically warrant an addition.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on seized electronic data, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C. The assessee failed to provide rebutting evidence or specific material. However, the Tribunal directed that additions related to unsecured loans and commission thereon be assessed at a lumpsum rate of 8% to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on seized electronic data, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C. The assessee failed to provide rebutting evidence or specific material. However, the Tribunal directed that additions related to unsecured loans and commission thereon be assessed at a lumpsum rate of 8% to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on seized electronic data, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C. The assessee failed to provide rebutting evidence or specific material. However, the Tribunal directed that additions related to unsecured loans and commission thereon be assessed at a lumpsum rate of 8% to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on seized electronic data, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C. The assessee failed to provide rebutting evidence or specific material. However, the Tribunal directed that additions related to unsecured loans and commission thereon be assessed at a lumpsum rate of 8% to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on seized electronic data, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C. The assessee failed to provide rebutting evidence or specific material. However, the Tribunal directed that additions related to unsecured loans and commission thereon be assessed at a lumpsum rate of 8% to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on seized electronic data, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C. The assessee failed to provide rebutting evidence or specific material. However, the Tribunal directed that additions related to unsecured loans and commission thereon be assessed at a lumpsum rate of 8% to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on seized electronic data, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C. The assessee failed to provide rebutting evidence or specific material. However, the Tribunal directed that additions related to unsecured loans and commission thereon be assessed at a lumpsum rate of 8% to avoid double additions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under section 143(1) was beyond its jurisdiction as the incorrect claim was not apparent from the return itself. The Tribunal also noted that the nature of the advance as capital expenditure was not evident from the return or supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimation basis, including cash deposits and expenses, are not sustainable if the books of account have not been rejected. The AO failed to verify the genuineness of expenses despite being provided with details.
The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimation basis, including cash deposits and expenses, are not sustainable if the books of account have not been rejected. The AO failed to verify the genuineness of expenses despite being provided with details.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the business should be treated as two separate segments, consistent with the previous year's ruling. The issue was restored to the TPO for re-verification of benchmarking on a segment-wise basis.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly served with notices, preventing them from making due compliance. Therefore, to uphold natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable as 'income from other sources' under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B(1) of the Income Tax Act, following amendments effective from April 1, 2010. The claim of exemption under Section 10(37) was rejected as it pertains to compensation, not interest.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were legally faulty. It found that the proceedings were barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 147, constituted a change of opinion since the original AO had enquired into the transactions, and the reassessing AO had travelled beyond the reasons recorded. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds without adjudicating on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's additions were made solely based on information from the INSIGHT portal, without conducting further inquiry or adducing material contrary to the assessee's claim. It noted that the assessee's share purchase transactions were previously accepted by the Revenue, and the SEBI order cited by the AO pertained to an inquiry period that predated the assessee's share sales. Relying on a coordinate bench decision with similar facts regarding the same scrip, the Tribunal found the AO's reliance misplaced and quashed the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that the receipts were genuine donations for the trust's religious and cultural objectives, not business income, as donor recognition was for public appraisal without a profit motive. It clarified that the trust's objects being religious/cultural, the trade-barring proviso of Section 2(15) was not applicable, thus deleting the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 148A(d) were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. This vitiated the entire reopening process.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice and subsequent order were based on utter casualness and non-application of mind, as the stated reasons for reopening were inconsistent and lacked proper linkage. The Tribunal found a variance in the grounds for reopening presented.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice and subsequent order were based on utter casualness and non-application of mind, as the stated reasons for reopening were inconsistent and lacked proper linkage. The Tribunal found a variance in the grounds for reopening presented.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit the additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding merit in the reasons provided. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after condoning the delay before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the admitted facts are that the impugned amounts were deposited by the two partners as contribution to the capital of the firms. Based on various case laws, any addition under Section 68 of the Act, under these facts, could only be made in the hands of the individual partners and not in the hands of the firm. Therefore, no addition was possible in the hands of the firm and the same was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO had not properly linked the total sales, as evidenced by GST returns, with the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amount in question represented repayment of a loan taken in an earlier year, which was accepted as genuine. The repayment was also made from explained sources.
The Tribunal found that the impugned additions were made due to lacunae in the evidence produced. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing sufficient evidence of the purchases and payments. The AO's addition was based on third-party information without independent verification and without rejecting the books of accounts.
The tribunal allowed two appeals (4520 and 4523) to be withdrawn. The remaining two appeals (4521 and 4522) were set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the documents filed by the assessee.
The tribunal allowed two appeals (4520 and 4523) to be withdrawn. The remaining two appeals (4521 and 4522) were set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the documents filed by the assessee.
The tribunal allowed two appeals (4520 and 4523) to be withdrawn. The remaining two appeals (4521 and 4522) were set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the documents filed by the assessee.
The tribunal allowed two appeals (4520 and 4523) to be withdrawn. The remaining two appeals (4521 and 4522) were set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to consider the documents filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the facts of the case, resulting in a non-speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the facts of the case, resulting in a non-speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue of advances from customers and trade payables should be remitted to the AO for de novo adjudication. The ground regarding costs was dismissed as general.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. M/s Abhisaar Buildwell, the Tribunal held that an addition under Section 153A/153C can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since the addition in this case was made without any incriminating material, it cannot be sustained. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition can be made under Section 153C in an unabated assessment year, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT had denied registration on the ground that the assessee did not furnish details as per notices. However, the assessee contended that the necessary information was provided, but overlooked by the CIT. The Ld. DR had no serious objection to restoring the issue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT had denied registration on the ground that the assessee did not furnish details as per notices. However, the assessee contended that the necessary information was provided, but overlooked by the CIT. The Ld. DR had no serious objection to restoring the issue.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the assessee's assertion regarding the declaration of transactions on another PAN. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the assessee's assertion regarding the declaration of transactions on another PAN. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the assessee's assertion regarding the declaration of transactions on another PAN. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the assessee's assertion regarding the declaration of transactions on another PAN. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the assessee's assertion regarding the declaration of transactions on another PAN. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of substantial justice to afford the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing, given the factual dispute regarding submission of documents.