Loading ITAT cases…
135 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals were not plausible or convincing. Following the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Tribunal dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals were not plausible or convincing. Following the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Tribunal dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals were not plausible or convincing. Following the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Tribunal dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the reasons provided were bonafide and reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the explanation for the delay was vague and not substantiated. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that delay must be explained from the start of the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals were not plausible or convincing. Following the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Tribunal dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals were not plausible or convincing. Following the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhary, the Tribunal dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Viswas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the case should be decided on merits in the interest of natural justice. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to produce necessary documents before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice for scrutiny was issued based on a parameter (para 1(ii) of CBDT instruction) that applied to survey operations under Section 133A. As no survey was conducted, the notice was invalid, rendering the assessment order bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were bonafide and not with malafide intention. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that once the receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels was undisputed, the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the agricultural income. The reasons provided by the CIT(A) for estimating income per acre were found to be incorrect and without merit.
The Tribunal held that once the receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels was undisputed, the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the agricultural income. The reasons provided by the CIT(A) for estimating income per acre were found to be incorrect and without merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to offer the gratuity provision as income was a bonafide and inadvertent mistake. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd vs. CIT, the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 270A.
The Tribunal held that failure to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee is a violation of law. It also noted that the responsibility to verify if recipients of expenditure paid taxes was not adequately discharged by either party.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was based on a mere change of opinion, as no fresh tangible material was available. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed, rendering the grounds challenging the disallowance academic.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A is not attracted when income is determined on an estimation basis, as per Section 270A(6)(c). Since the additions were made on an ad-hoc/estimation basis, the penalty was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were bonafide and not with malafide intention. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were bonafide and not with malafide intention. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were bonafide and not with malafide intention. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's business activities involved both commission agency and dealership in drip irrigation systems, which might warrant different commission rates. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was made on an ad-hoc basis without rejecting the assessee's books of account or pointing out any discrepancies. Therefore, the disallowance is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the prior period interest income offered in a subsequent year should not be taxed again. It also held that the grant payment made by the assessee was in the nature of revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal found the assessee's request for an opportunity to be heard reasonable. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that losses arising from embezzlement by an agent are deductible if they arise out of and are incidental to the business, and if recovery is not possible. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts in light of Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal found that the AO erred in disallowing the entire bonus expenditure without proper verification, as some payments were made within the stipulated time. Similarly, the ESI disallowance was made twice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification of facts.
The Tribunal held that losses arising from embezzlement by an agent are deductible if they arise out of and are incidental to the business, and if recovery is not possible. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the facts in light of Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the prior period interest income offered in a subsequent year should not be taxed again. It also held that the grant payment made by the assessee was in the nature of revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of the Rs. 60 lakhs cash deposit made on November 13, 2016, by showing withdrawals from other bank accounts on November 7, 2016. Therefore, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains arising from the sale of flats should be treated as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). This decision was based on a coordinate bench's ruling in a similar case involving another co-owner of the same JDA.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains arising from the sale of flats should be treated as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). This decision was based on a coordinate bench's ruling in a similar case involving another co-owner of the same JDA.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee demonstrated a significant cash balance, the sources of cash receipts were not sufficiently substantiated with documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition was partly deleted.
The Tribunal held that if the individual receipts of each educational institution are less than Rs. 1 crore, the assessee is not required to get its books of account audited or file Form 10BB, even if the total receipts exceed Rs. 1 crore. This decision followed precedents from the Karnataka and Jammu & Kashmir High Courts.