Loading ITAT cases…
42 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may have passed the order without proper notice to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had paid off these creditors in subsequent assessment years and had filed confirmation letters. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving notices for hearings. The tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A) to present his case and evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may have passed the order without proper notice to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present supporting documents.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to issue a fresh notice to the assessee and provide a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence to the AO and CIT(A) regarding the eligibility of the deduction. However, considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to present evidence, the appeal was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a decision on merits, citing a High Court ruling. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided an explanation and a letter from his in-laws regarding the gift. The Revenue authorities did not conduct further inquiries to verify the explanation. Therefore, the addition was not warranted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals, granting relief on certain additions related to house property investment and cash credits, while confirming others. Some issues were remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance, dismissing the appeal in limine for want of prosecution was not appropriate. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration recorded in the registered sale deed of Rs. 37 lakhs should be considered, as there was no documentary evidence to support the higher sale value of Rs. 56 lakhs. An admission by the counsel without the assessee's concurrence and without documentary proof is insufficient.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not rectify the defects or communicate a change of address. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that necessary materials were misplaced earlier and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing, indicating a lackadaisical approach. The Tribunal found no other option but to confirm the order of the CIT(A) and the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E by way of intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015. Such levy was considered to be without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should only examine the objectives of the company at the time of registration, not its activities. Any violations of IT Act provisions can be addressed during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should only examine the objectives of the company at the time of registration, not its activities. Any violations of IT Act provisions can be addressed during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E by way of intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015. Such levy was considered to be without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E by way of intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015. Such levy was considered to be without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without properly examining the loan transaction or cross-examining the lender. The addition of Rs. 2,66,000/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that if the deposited amount was indeed fees due to the society and utilized for its activities, it should not be treated as income of the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that investments made within the due date of filing a revised return under Section 139(4) are eligible for deduction under Section 54. Consequently, the entire LTCG addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that no addition could be made for unexplained investment without substantial evidence, especially when the document was not found with the assessee and the vendor denied receiving the payment. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled it would not apply if no exempt income was earned during the year.
The Tribunal held that two companies, Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd. and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., were not comparable for software development services due to product portfolios and lack of segmental data. Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. was also excluded for IT-enabled services as it provided re-engineered payroll services and lacked bifurcation.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessee's claim of ignorance of FBT provisions was not a reasonable cause for non-compliance, especially after being notified.
The Tribunal held that payments related to hire purchase transactions do not attract TDS provisions under Section 40(a)(ia). Following judicial precedents, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was considered retrospective.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted some evidence of improvement costs before the CIT(A) which were not considered. While the claimed costs were deemed too high, the Tribunal allowed a partial amount for these additions.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider property tax receipts and GHMC notifications which could indicate commercial assessment of the properties. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted some evidence of improvement costs before the CIT(A) which were not considered. While the claimed costs were deemed too high, the Tribunal allowed a partial amount for these additions.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessee's claim of ignorance of FBT provisions was not a reasonable cause for non-compliance, especially after being notified.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier AY, which permitted deduction under Section 80P for interest earned on FDRs. Other grounds were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the land retained its character as agricultural land at the time of sale. Since it was located beyond 8kms from the Municipal area, it was not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a deceased person, after the AO was made aware of the death and the legal representative's status, is invalid. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.