Loading ITAT cases…
211 tribunal orders from the Guwahati bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 211 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that while the loan originated from the assessee's HUF, the HUF's creditworthiness was not adequately proven due to its meagre income and short-term withdrawals. Therefore, a part of the addition was upheld.
The tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) by a specific date.
The Tribunal found that neither party had fully substantiated their claims. Therefore, a lump sum addition on an estimation basis was made to meet the ends of justice, providing partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of ₹24,80,052/- as unexplained income, finding the assessee's explanation regarding firm's sale proceeds unconvincing. However, the matter was remanded to ascertain the peak credit of deposits.
The Tribunal declined to hear the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold limit of ₹50 lac as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Assessing Officer was permitted to seek rectification if the tax effect computation was irregular.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed the Assessing Officer's action. The tribunal noted that the assessee is a Joint Venture and the share capital was subscribed by two entities.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The departmental representative did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument that a best judgment assessment was rightly made. The assessment records did not indicate that the Assessing Officer had issued a show-cause notice or stated the assessee's default under Section 144(1). Therefore, the best judgment assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(b) was not sustainable as the property was let out to a firm in which the trustee was a partner, and the firm was paying rent. The consequential disallowance under Section 11(2) was also set aside.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, as the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the tax effect being below the prescribed threshold limit as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. CBDT circulars are binding on revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the nexus of the commission payment with the income earned and did not provide evidence of services rendered by the payee. Therefore, the disallowance of the expense was upheld.
The Tribunal found that neither party had fully substantiated their claims. Therefore, a lump sum addition on an estimation basis was made to meet the ends of justice, providing partial relief to the assessee.
The tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) by a specific date.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that neither the lower authorities nor the CIT(A) examined the assessee's transaction details or issued notices to the broker/stock exchange. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim that the impugned sum was part of his disclosed private practice income required factual verification. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not discussed the factual matrix of the issues and had wrongly attributed the failure to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was because neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had called or produced any of the parties for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of an exemption claim, even if not appealed against, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Such a situation does not constitute concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, stating that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IC was time-barred as it fell beyond the permissible ten assessment years.
The Tribunal restored the assessee's grounds to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) by a specific date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not discussed the factual matrix of the issues and had wrongly attributed the failure to the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that VAT remission and interest subsidy are part of the business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80IC, following Supreme Court and ITAT precedents and a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal noted that there was no proof of service of the last hearing notice and no adjudication on merits by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that filing the return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) is a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VIA, including Section 80-IE, as per Section 80AC. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that filing the return of income within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) is a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under Chapter VIA, including Section 80-IE, as per Section 80AC. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to comply with the e-filing requirements. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed one appeal, reducing a disallowance to 30% based on a subsequent amendment to Section 40(a)(ia). Other appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, remanding issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification due to insufficient details or pending adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance on purchases to Rs. 3,00,000/- and miscellaneous expenses to Rs. 50,000/-. The assessee did not press the ground regarding VAT penalty.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for framing a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). Since the notice was issued by an officer without territorial jurisdiction, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders did not address the merits of the cases. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.