Loading ITAT cases…
97 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal. It held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing relief based on documentary evidence, as the Assessing Officer had relied on the same sale deed and the grounds raised by the Revenue were not arising from the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot revise the assessment order under Section 263 if the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue are not met. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was not erroneous as it was based on the information available and the scope of reassessment. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary powers were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view by taxing the cash component in subsequent years, and the issue of taxability in AY 2014-15 versus subsequent years was not definitively erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, especially considering potential double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS must be levied in the assessment year in which the violation occurred. Since the violation took place in AY 2016-17, the penalty levied in AY 2017-18 was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors, and mere banking channel transactions are insufficient. The assessee also failed to appear before the Tribunal to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a firm is specifically covered under Section 2(3)(b) of the Finance Act, 2018, which levies surcharge only if the total income exceeds one crore rupees. The Tribunal found the levy of surcharge to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a firm is specifically covered under Section 2(3)(b) of the Finance Act, 2018, which levies surcharge only if the total income exceeds one crore rupees. The Tribunal found the levy of surcharge to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that sales made in old currency notes during demonetization were not legal sales. Following its own precedent in Vaishnavi Bullions Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 14A disallowance to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim regarding duty drawback. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the case was selected for limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer was not required to travel beyond the specified reasons. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous, even if it might be prejudicial to revenue. The twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied.
The Tribunal noted that similar circumstances in group cases led to restoration of matters to the Assessing Officer. Given the unavailability of key personnel, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that key personnel of the assessee company were in judicial custody during the assessment and appellate proceedings, which prevented them from diligently prosecuting their case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not be sustained. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the findings regarding the zero-income status and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the department's consistent stand in prior years. The addition of Rs. 3.98 crores was allowed to be examined with additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing appeals. Consequently, the delay petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, especially considering the disruption caused by the pandemic. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing appeals. Consequently, the delay petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing appeals. Consequently, the delay petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the properties let out were used for commercial purposes, as they were situated in residential societies and local authorities did not levy commercial taxes. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 54F.
The Tribunal set aside the findings regarding the zero-income status and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the department's consistent stand in prior years. The addition of Rs. 3.98 crores was allowed to be examined with additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing appeals. Consequently, the delay petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing appeals. Consequently, the delay petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing appeals. Consequently, the delay petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delays in filing appeals. Consequently, the delay petitions were dismissed, and the appeals were not admitted.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, set aside the impugned order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, set aside the impugned order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, set aside the impugned order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, set aside the impugned order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, set aside the impugned order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee sold vacant plots and not a residential house, thus not eligible for deduction under Section 54. Furthermore, the assessee owned more than one house, making her ineligible for deduction under Section 54F.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, set aside the impugned order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is not allowable as per Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Section 43B is not applicable to Section 36(1)(va).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable under Section 246A. Therefore, the appeals filed by the directors were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities must provide documents to affected parties, especially when decisions have civil and criminal consequences. The non-supply of seized material and statements violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance and lack of substantiation. The assessee's failure to appear and provide necessary details led to the confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the core issue was whether Form 26AS accurately reflected the interest accrued. To resolve this, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry with the bank and proper reconciliation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable under Section 246A. Therefore, the appeals filed by the directors were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable under Section 246A. Therefore, the appeals filed by the directors were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that an order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable under Section 246A. Therefore, the appeals filed by the directors were dismissed as not maintainable.