Loading ITAT cases…
102 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that income from fishing activity is a commercial activity and not agricultural income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to compute the correct business income after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit necessary documents.
The tribunal held that an order cannot be passed against a deceased person. The matter was required to be remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass an order after granting an opportunity to the legal heirs.
The Tribunal held that income from fishing activity is a commercial activity and not agricultural income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to compute the correct business income after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that income from fishing activity is a commercial activity and not agricultural income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to compute the correct business income after providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit necessary documents.
The Tribunal found it unlikely that the assessee had no activity to generate the declared income. While the exact cash on hand was difficult to prove, the Tribunal accepted a pragmatic view, allowing the assessee's plea to double the declared income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the valuation to a Valuation Officer as mandated by Section 50C(2) despite the assessee's plea about litigation impacting market value. The CIT(A) also did not consider the merits of the plea.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the demonetization period did not prohibit business operations, and the deposits were part of business receipts. The addition under Section 69A was deleted, and the income estimation was modified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the valuation to a Valuation Officer as mandated by Section 50C(2) despite the assessee's plea about litigation impacting market value. The CIT(A) also did not consider the merits of the plea.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and that the appeal was defective due to a significant delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both grounds.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the cash was withdrawn for a property purchase which did not materialize, and the remaining amount was deposited during demonetization. The entire addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Furthermore, the issue was debatable, and thus, the adjustment under Section 143(1) was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the prevailing COVID-19 situation and the fact that the delay was neither intentional nor for undue benefit. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it was not decided on merits. Substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not decide the appeal on merits. Substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.
The Tribunal held that a 10% net profit estimation was too high given the assessee's business and past declarations. It considered a pragmatic approach and found 5% to be a reasonable rate for net profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that for penalty under Section 270A(8) to be levied, the AO must prove the case falls under Section 270A(9). Since the deemed income under Section 115JB was higher than the normal income even after the addition, there was no under-reporting of income and no loss to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that once an appeal is not admitted due to delay, the appellate authority should not decide the issues on merit. The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and reasonable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to explain the source of the seized items. However, considering the assessee's readiness to produce documentary evidence and the fact that the assessee stands to gain nothing by withholding it, a fresh opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed based on the assessee's subsequent reply, levying a penalty for non-compliance with a single earlier notice was erroneous. The penalty was therefore set aside.
The tribunal upheld the denial of deduction u/s 11 due to the delayed filing of Form 10B. However, it directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of expenses against its gross receipts.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case, considering the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department due to their non-compliance.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of HSIL Limited from the list of comparables, finding that segmental results were not sufficiently clear for comparison. For Cera Sanitary Ware Limited, the Tribunal followed its previous year's decision and directed its exclusion from the comparables list. The assessee was also granted MAT credit.
The Tribunal held that incentives should be included in the turnover for profit estimation. Since the assessee could not substantiate passing on incentives to customers, the Tribunal directed estimation of profit at 5.5% on total turnover including incentives.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to produce documentary evidence to support his contentions. The impugned order was set aside and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, considering the assessee's submission of unavoidable reasons for non-compliance, restored the issues to the AO. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, considering the assessee's submission of unavoidable reasons for non-compliance, restored the issues to the AO. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, considering the assessee's submission of unavoidable reasons for non-compliance, restored the issues to the AO. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, considering the assessee's submission of unavoidable reasons for non-compliance, restored the issues to the AO. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department.
The tribunal upheld the denial of deduction u/s 11 due to the delayed filing of Form 10B. However, it directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim for deduction of expenses against its gross receipts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, considering the assessee's submission of unavoidable reasons for non-compliance, restored the issues to the AO. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the addition because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued or served electronically as required. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not comply with Section 249(4)(b), it was in the interest of justice to grant a fresh opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment on merits.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. Therefore, the denial of FTC solely on the ground of belated filing of Form 67 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to allow the assessee an opportunity to produce documentary evidence and conduct proceedings diligently.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to submit details, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- to the State Legal Aid Services Department.
The Tribunal found that the bank's sanction of a housing loan for the property, which was significantly higher than the purchase price, indicated that the bank considered the additional construction costs. However, the assessee still needed to provide further evidence to substantiate the payment for these improvements.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without calling for a remand report from the AO, especially when the AO claimed the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of funds. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal without discussing the merits of the assessee's submissions, likely due to the assessee's non-representation. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the effective date of the software development agreement. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer/TPO to verify the agreement's start date and recompute the transfer pricing adjustment accordingly.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case, while directing a payment of Rs. 3000/- for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that there is no presumption that an assessee must spend all previously withdrawn cash before making new deposits. It directed the AO to consider withdrawals within six months prior to the deposit, allowing relief to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) has powers to conduct further inquiries, they cannot remand the matter to the AO. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s direction, ordering the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation.
The Tribunal found that the entire amount of Rs. 10.40 lakhs was deposited on a single day shortly after demonetization. Considering the assessee's income and the circumstances, the Tribunal believed the assessee's version and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT should have conducted the inquiry himself before invoking section 263. Furthermore, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P for interest income from fixed deposits with a nationalized bank if the source of investment is derived from specified activities.
The Tribunal held that the issue of the Rs. 10,00,000/- addition had attained finality in a previous appeal. The CIT(A) had granted the opportunity for changing the section of taxation as directed by the Tribunal and passed a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 8.14 lakhs deposit was permissible business receipt for mobile top-ups and directed its deletion from Section 69A additions. It reduced the estimated business profit from 8% to 4% of turnover. The disallowance under Chapter VIA was set aside for verification.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the issues raised. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the exact date of service of the CIT(A)'s notice was uncertain, and the assessee may not have had sufficient time to collate information. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the submitted details.