Loading ITAT cases…
13 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee needs an adequate opportunity to explain the claim of exemption under Section 10(26) before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored to him for fresh decision.
The Tribunal decided that additions made under Section 153C without incriminating material were to be deleted. Certain disallowances under Section 40A(3) and issues regarding capital expenditure and depreciation were remanded to the AO for verification. One ground regarding sundry subscription was allowed as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for non-payment of advance tax as per section 149(4)(b) and that the AO completed assessment under section 144 due to the assessee's non-participation. Observing that the assessee belongs to a Scheduled Tribe in Meghalaya and her income might be exempt under section 10(26), the Tribunal, with no objection from the DR, set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The case was remanded to the AO to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity to substantiate her claims for exemption under section 10(26).
The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report (Form 10B) is directory and substantial compliance is sufficient. The delay in filing Form 10B was condoned, and the exemption under sections 11 and 12 was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the CIT(A) had a holistic view of the documents and the AO's failure to comment on the additional evidence was not justifiable.