Loading ITAT cases…
99 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, requiring timely filing for Section 80P deduction, was applicable from AY 2019-20 onwards. Since the assessment year was prior to this amendment, the disallowance based on late filing was incorrect. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had proven its eligibility and thus the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition.
The Tribunal found that the assessee possessed a valid prior registration and had inadvertently failed to submit it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matters for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee possessed a valid prior registration and had inadvertently failed to submit it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matters for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the assessee's reason for delay, an oversight in noticing departmental emails, constituted a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits being from the sale of agricultural land was bona fide and acceptable, as the assessee had no other source of income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that once expenditure is recorded in the books of account and the assessee offers an explanation for the source, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed solely for not submitting further supporting evidence. The Tribunal found the addition to be contrary to the evidence on record.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the AO. It directed the AO to re-examine the claims after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and be heard.
The Tribunal held that the retrospective cancellation of the assessee's registration under Section 12AB(4) was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also considered the grounds related to the disallowance of expenditure on school building construction and auto-rickshaw distribution.
The Tribunal held that the retrospective cancellation of the assessee's registration under Section 12AB(4) was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also considered the grounds related to the disallowance of expenditure on school building construction and auto-rickshaw distribution.
The Tribunal allowed the first appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the AO for fresh adjudication with liberty to the assessee to submit additional evidence. The Tribunal allowed the second appeal, holding that the rectification order making a fresh addition was beyond the scope of Section 154.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) misunderstood the assessee's computation of income and disallowed losses incorrectly.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s invocation of a specific section to set aside the order was not in accordance with law. However, considering the need for fresh factual verification, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were not abnormal when compared to previous years and coincided with the festival season, a period of higher donations. The donation receipts were detailed and supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal condoned the 5-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the AO should not have computed the Annual Lettable Value (ALV) for a property that was not let out during the year under consideration, based solely on an incorrect claim of interest on borrowed capital.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as it was solely based on a third-party statement without corroborative evidence. The conditions for invoking Section 69A or Section 69C were not met.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition solely based on financial statements and an audit report, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the business activity and the source of cash deposits. The issue was therefore set aside to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for municipal tax deduction and directed the AO to verify it. The issue of interest on borrowed capital was remanded to the AO for verification of the loan's purpose. The addition of Rs. 7,50,000 as business income was deleted to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of purchases based solely on the supplier's non-response to a notice under Section 133(6) is not sustainable when the assessee has provided supporting documents like invoices, confirmations, and bank statements. The addition was deemed to be based on suspicion.
The Tribunal allowed the first appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the AO for fresh adjudication with liberty to the assessee to submit additional evidence. The Tribunal allowed the second appeal, holding that the rectification order making a fresh addition was beyond the scope of Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash payment by providing the partnership firm's financial statements, partner's capital account, and cash book, which showed sufficient cash in hand and drawings made by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 1.25% profit on suppressed sales and delete additions made towards inflated purchases, finding them unsubstantiated. For AY 2023-24, the addition on gross profit difference was deleted entirely.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 1.25% profit on suppressed sales and delete additions made towards inflated purchases, finding them unsubstantiated. For AY 2023-24, the addition on gross profit difference was deleted entirely.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 1.25% profit on suppressed sales and delete additions made towards inflated purchases, finding them unsubstantiated. For AY 2023-24, the addition on gross profit difference was deleted entirely.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 1.25% profit on suppressed sales and delete additions made towards inflated purchases, finding them unsubstantiated. For AY 2023-24, the addition on gross profit difference was deleted entirely.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of salary expenses was fallacious based on the evidence provided. It also directed the deletion of additions for belated PF/ESI remittances as the assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance. The ad hoc disallowance of travelling expenses was also directed to be deleted as it was based on guesswork.
The Tribunal found that the additions were made without proper verification and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment. The AO was instructed to examine the cash deposits and the reconciliation between bank credits and turnover, following CBDT guidelines.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim of acting as an intermediary and receiving commission income was prima facie supported by Form 26AS and some documentary evidence, it fell short of a fully substantiated explanation for the credits. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to follow the CBDT's SOP for cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regular registration under Section 80G was beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) was correct in rejecting the application as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation. Following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in PCIT vs. K. Umesh Shetty, the Tribunal considered the date of reference made by the AO to the Addl. DIT as the date of initiation of penalty proceedings. Although the exact date of reference was not on record, it was concluded that the reference was made prior to the assessment order dated 23/12/2019. Even if the assessment order date is taken as the reference date, the penalty order should have been passed by 30/06/2020. Since the penalty order was passed on 29/03/2022, it was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal quashed the penalty. The other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on the limitation issue.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) was justified due to the unreliable and incomplete nature of the accounts. The estimation of income based on a profit rate was also found to be reasonable.
The Tribunal admitted a deed of settlement as additional evidence and set aside the matter to the AO for re-adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the settlement deed and the assessee's explanation for cash payments.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271E must be initiated during the course of pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer, with a recorded satisfaction. Since no such proceedings were pending and no satisfaction was recorded, the penalty was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Act, as the date of receipt of DRP's directions was 27.06.2024. Therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the 50-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the change in LLP constitution and miscommunication of the order. The Tribunal also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68, holding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations and bank statements of loan creditors.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that there was no under-reporting of income as the assessed income matched the returned income in response to the section 148 notice. The assessee's belief that sale of agricultural land was not taxable was considered bona fide.
The tribunal held that the denial of concessional tax rate by the CPC without issuing prior intimation as mandated by the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) is unsustainable. The intimation and subsequent orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and that additional evidence was filed before the Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the admissibility of the additional evidence under Rule 46A and decide the appeal afresh after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits from opening cash balance, which was supported by consistent cash sales figures. The AO's rejection was not justified as there was no abnormal variation in sales.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw the duplicate appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw the duplicate appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under the unamended Section 149 of the Act. The amended provisions could not be applied as the limitation had already expired.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not supported by cogent evidence and did not constitute a 'sufficient and reasonable cause'. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent conduct throughout the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that there was no difference between the income returned in response to the notice under Section 148 and the income assessed by the AO, thus the concept of under-reporting of income did not arise. The assessee's belief that sale of agricultural land was not taxable was considered bona fide.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 232 days, finding it to be for a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the HRA issue to the AO to give the assessee another opportunity to produce proof of rent payment. For the property investment issue, the Tribunal directed the AO to conduct a proper inquiry into the confirmations filed by the assessee regarding the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271E must be initiated during the course of pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer, with a recorded satisfaction. Since no such proceedings were pending and no satisfaction was recorded, the penalty was deemed bad in law.