Loading ITAT cases…
135 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the condonation of delay application should be decided liberally, especially for a short delay. It also noted that the CIT(A) had referred to Supreme Court judgments but failed to apply them correctly. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with all requisite details and documentary evidence to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the AO needs to verify if the interest paid on borrowed funds is directly relatable to the deposits made for obtaining Letters of Credit for setting up the plant. If so, it should be allowed; otherwise, it should be dealt with as per law.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not deal with the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(E). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the AO for fresh consideration of Form 10B and passing appropriate orders.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not deciding the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in selecting the wrong section code should not lead to the denial of permanent registration. They acknowledged that the due dates for filing were extended and that the assessee was willing to rectify the error.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The Tribunal found that the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee were indeed missed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10B is directory, and failure to file it before the due date is not fatal if the form is available when the intimation under Section 143(1) is passed. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the available Form 10B.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that five of the disputed comparable companies were functionally dissimilar due to significant revenue from services and directed their exclusion. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the comparability of one company sought for inclusion by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(E) and Section 12A(1)(ba) requiring filing of return in accordance with Section 139(4A) was not applicable for the year under consideration, the exemption under Section 11 should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were for additional work and not entirely unaccounted income. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to a percentage of the profit from this additional work, but modified the profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the issue of disallowing interest on deposits was not dealt with in the previous assessment. However, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) lacked the power to set aside the assessment and remand the matter for fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is taxable only in the hands of the shareholder, not the recipient concern, unless the concern itself is a shareholder. Therefore, the addition made in the hands of the assessee was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the computation of eligible profits for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was unclear and required re-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on audited cash book ledger accounts for AY 2015-16 were unsustainable as the assessment was already concluded. Revenue's ground regarding estimation of income for 5 flats was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the computation of eligible profits for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was unclear due to conflicting figures from the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that since no salary was paid and no TDS was actually deducted by the employer, the assessee is not eligible for TDS credit. Furthermore, salary is taxable on accrual basis as per Section 15(a) of the Income Tax Act, even if not paid.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue back for fresh consideration in the interest of natural justice. The assessee was directed to pay a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case with requisite details and documentary evidence. A nominal fee of Rs. 5000/- was levied on the assessee.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the entire appeal when only a partial withdrawal was intended. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order concerning grounds 9 to 11 and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on those grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for making cash payments under compelling circumstances, due to dishonored cheques and the chit company's insistence on immediate payment, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the IT Act as it failed to decide the appeal on merits. The tribunal found it reasonable to remit the issue back for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessee sold land of 23 acres for Rs.60 crores to PBEL, and Irmac was merely an entity created to reduce the assessee's tax liability. The Tribunal found that the assessee was the real beneficiary of the land transfer and the money was taxable in their hands. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the beneficiary of the Rs.46,11,68,750/- and the expenses claimed by Irmac (eviction charges and earth levelling), stating that Irmac did not have possession of the property and therefore could not incur such expenses. The Tribunal noted that Irmac's appeal had been dismissed, and additions made to Irmac were sustained on a protective basis. The Tribunal concluded that the Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA was a sham and nominal document created to evade capital gains tax. Consequently, the order of the Assessing Officer was restored, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed in toto, while the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Grounds related to capital gains and agricultural income were dismissed in light of the findings in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had extended the deadline for obtaining registration and recognition. The assessee subsequently obtained the required registration and recognition.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-compliance before the CIT(A) to be bonafide. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessee sold land of 23 acres for Rs.60 crores to PBEL, and Irmac was merely an entity created to reduce the assessee's tax liability. The Tribunal found that the assessee was the real beneficiary of the land transfer and the money was taxable in their hands. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the beneficiary of the Rs.46,11,68,750/- and the expenses claimed by Irmac (eviction charges and earth levelling), stating that Irmac did not have possession of the property and therefore could not incur such expenses. The Tribunal noted that Irmac's appeal had been dismissed, and additions made to Irmac were sustained on a protective basis. The Tribunal concluded that the Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA was a sham and nominal document created to evade capital gains tax. Consequently, the order of the Assessing Officer was restored, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed in toto, while the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Grounds related to capital gains and agricultural income were dismissed in light of the findings in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned penalty order and restored the penalty appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is to decide the penalty appeal along with the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to the ill health of the key person. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents, directing the assessee to appear without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not dispute the loan received from the husband, the explanation for the cash deposits should have been accepted. The failure to provide names of relatives to whom loans were given was not a sufficient reason to reject the available source.
The Tribunal held that the protective addition for sub-contract expenses could not be sustained when the Assessing Officer had already rejected the books of accounts and estimated the net profit. The appeal was allowed in part.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds of substantial justice, citing the ill health of the key person. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not reference the assessee's reply to a show-cause notice regarding the interest disallowance. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration denovo.