Loading ITAT cases…
223 tribunal orders from the Guwahati bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 223 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, held that delayed deposit of employees' contributions to PF/ESI cannot be claimed as a deduction, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search operation pertaining to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her initial onus by providing the names, PANs, and banking details of the creditors, and proving the genuineness of the transactions through banking channels. Since the AO did not conduct further inquiries to disprove the genuineness, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition because no incriminating material was found during the search, and the department had accepted the lower rate in similar cases for other group entities. The revenue cannot adopt inconsistent positions for different assessees involved in the same search.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition because no incriminating material was found during the search, and the department had accepted the lower rate in similar cases for other group entities. The revenue cannot adopt inconsistent positions for different assessees involved in the same search.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition because no incriminating material was found during the search, and the department had accepted the lower rate in similar cases for other group entities. The revenue cannot adopt inconsistent positions for different assessees involved in the same search.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition because no incriminating material was found during the search, and the department had accepted the lower rate in similar cases for other group entities. The revenue cannot adopt inconsistent positions for different assessees involved in the same search.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition because no incriminating material was found during the search, and the department had accepted the lower rate in similar cases for other group entities. The revenue cannot adopt inconsistent positions for different assessees involved in the same search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reopening, finding it was done mechanically without independent application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal also deleted the addition under Section 68, holding that capital contribution from a partner cannot be added to the firm's income if the source is explained or can be assessed in the hands of the partner.
The Tribunal held that since a director of the assessee company had declared the entire balance of share capital and reserves as income under the IDS Scheme, 2016, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not grant sufficient time to the assessee to file voluminous submissions and supporting documents in the online faceless appeal system. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found it fair to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claims before the AO by producing necessary documents. The issue was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the opening capital balance by providing financial statements and records from preceding years. The addition was made due to the non-availability of information to the AO.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and dealing with the merits of the case.
The tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the disallowance of employee's PF & ESI contribution, citing the Supreme Court's decision. However, it remanded the issue of enhancing the Section 80IE deduction to the Assessing Officer, considering the Board's circular.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the PCIT fell within the scope of the limited scrutiny, specifically 'income from heads of income other than business/profession mismatch'. The assessee's failure to respond to the PCIT's notice was also noted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined the share transactions and related documents, and the PCIT could not provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's conclusion was not supported by cogent material, as the scrips in question were not listed on the NSE. The AO failed to provide basic transaction details or evidence of funds credited to bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Section 251(2) by enhancing the assessment without issuing a show cause notice. It also noted that the assessee's status as a Schedule Tribe and eligibility for exemption under Section 10(26) was not disputed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for penal interest, stating it was not a penalty under Section 37(1) and not covered by Section 43B. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of prior period expenses, following a precedent where prior period income was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Section 251(2) by enhancing the assessment without issuing a show cause notice. It also noted that the assessee's status as a Schedule Tribe and eligibility for exemption under Section 10(26) was not disputed.
The Tribunal held that the procedural technicalities raised by the assessee did not have a material bearing on the outcome of the assessment. It found that the Assessing Officer had made due procedural compliances and that the Assessing Officer's findings were well-reasoned.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any corroborative evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the cash credits and cash sales. Opportunities were given at all stages, but no supporting material was produced.
The Tribunal held that the procedural technicalities raised by the assessee did not have a material bearing on the outcome of the assessment. It found that the Assessing Officer had made due procedural compliances and that the Assessing Officer's findings were well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and void. This was due to a change of opinion by the AO, lack of proper reasons to believe for reopening, and a violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and void. This was due to a change of opinion by the AO, lack of proper reasons to believe for reopening, and a violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished Form 26A and a certificate from a CA during the scrutiny assessment, proving the payee had included the income and paid taxes. The CIT(A) had not considered this evidence.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Principal CIT was barred by limitation. The limitation period for revision runs from the date of the original assessment order, not the subsequent reassessment, when the issue under revision was not part of the reassessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It held that since the assessment was unabated on the date of the search, no addition could be made without incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions outside the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. The assessment order was quashed as bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions outside the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. The assessment order was quashed as bad in law.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act do not have evidentiary value to make additions, especially when retracted and explained. Therefore, additions based solely on such statements are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is valid, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to section 143(1)(a) mandates an intimation to the assessee before making adjustments. Since no such opportunity was provided, the adjustment was deemed illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, thus upholding the deletion of additions. The partial addition sustained by the CIT(A) was also set aside as unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions, thus upholding the deletion of additions. The partial addition sustained by the CIT(A) was also set aside as unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Department did not possess sufficient details to doubt the genuineness of the transactions and that similar claims had been accepted in other assessment orders. Therefore, no addition was sustainable on merits.