Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 1 of 29
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) acted arbitrarily by rejecting the application and cancelling the existing registration without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to substantiate the advances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.
The Tribunal held that opening a place of worship as part of a community center or for general public service is not inherently a religious activity, and Diwali expenses are considered general celebration costs. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s rejection based on religious activities was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment in the case of another person consequent to a search requires prior approval, which was absent. Furthermore, Section 148A of the Act was incorrectly invoked in this scenario.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. A de novo assessment order is to be passed based on the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) acted arbitrarily by rejecting the application and cancelling the existing registration without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to substantiate the advances. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.
The Tribunal acknowledged that sourcing from unregistered dealers was possible and that sales were not disputed. Considering divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the impugned purchases was deemed just and proper.
The tribunal allowed the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) based on treaty non-discrimination clauses. Issues of double disallowance and short credit of TDS/TCS were remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be allowed up to the date of actual credit of the refund to the assessee's bank account, considering the delay and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.
The Tribunal held that the impugned cash deposits formed part of the sale consideration from the agricultural land. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions. The Tribunal agreed that the gains were long-term and thus exempt under Section 10(38) as the shares were held for over 12 months and sold through a recognized stock exchange with STT paid.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and factual verification of the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issues afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the impugned prior period expenditure disallowance of Rs. 50 lakhs was not sustainable as the expenditure had not crystallized in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also found no reason to revive the reassessment proceedings quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that subsequent developments, including the acceptance of the house property as constructed by both the assessee and her husband in the husband's case, necessitated fresh factual verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the matter to determine their respective shares.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that ESI/PF dues must be credited before the statutory due date, not the return filing due date, as per Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions. This disallowance is permissible under section 143(1) processing.
The Tribunal held that the impugned prior period expenditure disallowance of Rs. 50 lakhs was not sustainable as the expenditure had not crystallized in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also found no reason to revive the reassessment proceedings quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating the withdrawals as unexplained expenditure. The assessee's foreign exchange agent license supported the claim that the withdrawals were part of his agency business and not unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. A de novo assessment order is to be passed based on the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the focus at the registration stage should be on the objects and genuineness of activities, not a detailed audit of expenditures. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was wrongly levied. The cash received was part of an agreement to sell, and a rectification deed corrected the date of receipt, indicating no intent to violate Section 269SS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.
The tribunal allowed the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) based on treaty non-discrimination clauses. Issues of double disallowance and short credit of TDS/TCS were remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case before the First Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the assessee to comply with the proceedings without undue delay.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but also the claim of inadequate opportunity and non-consideration of evidence. It decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded all issues back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the submissions and documentary evidence before passing a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year was unabated and additions under section 153C must be based on seized material. Since the loans were declared in regular books, they could not be treated as unexplained money based on seized material.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.
The Tribunal held that the impugned prior period expenditure disallowance of Rs. 50 lakhs was not sustainable as the expenditure had not crystallized in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also found no reason to revive the reassessment proceedings quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO could not bring on record any specific incriminating evidence to prove the transaction was not genuine. The assessee had provided documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares. The AO's addition was based on suspicion and information from unrelated searches.
The Tribunal held that repayment of funds borrowed for capital expenditure, where the funds were not claimed as application in the year of borrowing, amounts to application of income for charitable purposes. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision supporting this view.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.