Loading ITAT cases…
177 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It found that while the assessee failed to adequately justify the share premium, the CIT(A) incorrectly applied the provisions related to unexplained cash credits. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271D, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to establish a reasonable cause for violating Section 269SS by accepting cash loans.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's inability to produce documentary evidence before lower authorities and its readiness to do so now, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the issues after providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty because the Assessing Officer's show cause notice failed to specify whether the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. This procedural defect renders the penalty unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable due to recent legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications which applied prospectively from April 1, 2021. The impugned disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was based on legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act, which were clarified to be applicable only from April 1, 2021, and that the disallowance pertained to employee's contribution under Section 36(va).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the ground relating to interest under Section 220(2) and that the assessee sought an opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not fully addressed all issues raised by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to provide documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met, as the Assessing Officer's own assessment order indicated that no specified material (money, bullion, jewellery, or entries in books) attracted the explanation. Therefore, the penalties were wrongly imposed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal filed by the Revenue was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing proportionate deduction for eligible flats and dismissing the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue. The decision was based on the principle of allowing deduction for units that satisfy the conditions, even if the entire project does not.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the necessary sanction from the prescribed authority under Section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act was not obtained. The satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner is a mandatory condition for issuing a notice under Section 148 by an AO below the rank of Joint Commissioner.
The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of exempt income. It upheld the deletion of accrued interest additions and the treatment of non-performance penalties as capital receipts. The bad debt claim was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met, as the Assessing Officer's own assessment order indicated that no specified material (money, bullion, jewellery, or entries in books) attracted the explanation. Therefore, the penalties were wrongly imposed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issue of disallowance on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of income at 44.5% was too harsh and 8% too low, remitting the issue of income estimation back to the AO for de novo consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unexplained cash and the addition for vehicles.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation of the differences.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The assessee was directed to appear with all relevant evidence and was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding prior period expenses, directing the AO to delete the addition. For statutory liabilities, the issue was remitted to the AO for examination of payment dates. For miscellaneous expenses and capital work in progress, the matters were restored to the AO for further examination and substantiation by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reason for it. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the deduction would not be denied merely because the approval of the recipient institute was subsequently withdrawn, as per the explanation to Section 35(1)(ii).
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for a fresh hearing and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The assessee was cautioned to cooperate fully in future proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the ESOP expenses as revenue expenditure based on High Court and ITAT precedents. It also upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance, as the assessee had no exempt income during the year.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view permissible in law after conducting necessary verifications. The Pr. CIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The order of the Pr. CIT was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met, as the Assessing Officer's own assessment order indicated that no specified material (money, bullion, jewellery, or entries in books) attracted the explanation. Therefore, the penalties were wrongly imposed.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met, as the Assessing Officer's own assessment order indicated that no specified material (money, bullion, jewellery, or entries in books) attracted the explanation. Therefore, the penalties were wrongly imposed.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) were not met, as the Assessing Officer's own assessment order indicated that no specified material (money, bullion, jewellery, or entries in books) attracted the explanation. Therefore, the penalties were wrongly imposed.
The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of exempt income. It upheld the deletion of accrued interest additions and the treatment of non-performance penalties as capital receipts. The bad debt claim was allowed.
The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of exempt income. It upheld the deletion of accrued interest additions and the treatment of non-performance penalties as capital receipts. The bad debt claim was allowed.
The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of exempt income. It upheld the deletion of accrued interest additions and the treatment of non-performance penalties as capital receipts. The bad debt claim was allowed.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to reinstate if the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Revenue had conceded to the request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Private Limited, held that mark-to-market loss on foreign exchange fluctuation on a term-loan is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal before it. It also condoned the significant delay of 977 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that an ex-parte order was passed without a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's participation in the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme. The appeal was then allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's participation in the Vivad-se-Vishwas scheme. The appeal was then allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The assessee claimed to possess sufficient evidence to justify the source of the bank deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal followed its previous order and allowed the deduction under Section 80P.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, holding that the delay was not intentional. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, holding that the delay was not intentional. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, holding that the delay was not intentional. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, holding that the delay was not intentional. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, holding that the delay was not intentional. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the identity and genuineness of the transaction with the creditor. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.