Loading ITAT cases…
214 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the AO erred in not excluding the already offered business income while making the STCG addition. Regarding the cash found, the Tribunal noted the AO should have conducted further verifications before summarily rejecting the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal found contradictions regarding whether the assessee provided explanations and documents to the AO. Therefore, the entire issue of cash deposits was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that presumptions under Section 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to documents seized from a third party without corroborative evidence. Additions based solely on such material are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that presumptions under Section 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to documents seized from a third party without corroborative evidence. Additions based solely on such material are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that presumptions under Section 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to documents seized from a third party without corroborative evidence. Additions based solely on such material are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in rejecting the books of account due to lack of proper documentation and estimating profit. The addition of rental income was also considered correct as separate business receipts.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented collections made by the assessee in his capacity as a Business Correspondent for SBI and were not his own funds. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a certificate from SBI confirming the assessee's role.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for the inordinate delay of 716 days in filing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for condonation.
The Tribunal found contradictions regarding whether the assessee provided explanations and documents to the AO. Therefore, the entire issue of cash deposits was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), following precedent. It also held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B), but directed the AO to verify the assessee's eligibility.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee firm had received on-money receipts over and above the recorded sale consideration. The addition made by the AO was justified as the firm had not declared the full amount of additional income received.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without a reasoned order, even if the assessee failed to appear. The matter was set aside for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals summarily without addressing the specific grounds of appeal. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a reasoned decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Welfare Fund contribution was incorrect due to the assessee's accounting method, and that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made in the absence of exempt income. It also found that the disallowance under Section 37(1) was not justified as the deductions were properly accounted for.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of sample chit agreements. It held that the issue of unexplained deposits required de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also directed the AO to restrict disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to 30% of the sum.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts regarding interest and late fee calculations.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was indeed barred by limitation. The period of limitation for imposing penalty is six months from the end of the financial year in which proceedings were initiated or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the CIT(A) or Tribunal is received by the Pr. CIT, whichever is later.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts regarding interest and late fee calculations.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts regarding interest and late fee calculations.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts regarding interest and late fee calculations.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash payment of rent was wrongly invoked under Section 69A as it was an expenditure recorded in the books. For conveyance and LTA, the matter was remanded for fresh verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and file a condonation petition. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation petitions and thereafter the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and file a condonation petition. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation petitions and thereafter the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts regarding interest and late fee calculations.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 18 days in filing the appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 is condoned. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and bona fide, falling under 'sufficient cause', and applied a lenient approach as per the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the AO under Section 154 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Tribunal reasoned that rectification under Section 154 is strictly for mistakes apparent from the record, which are patent and obvious, not requiring fresh investigation or deliberation. The AO's attempt to levy tax at a higher rate under Section 115BBE via Section 154 constituted a change of opinion, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee, which was explained as interest income from money lending business, could not be considered unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the assessee explained the source of investment from undisclosed income generated from the finance business, and both income and deployment were part of the same seized material, it was not assessable as unexplained investment. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty levied for AY 2016-17 in respect of capital gains, but the judgment text provided does not detail the finding on the penalty related to interest income. The appeals for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were allowed, quashing the Section 154 orders.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on an incorrect factual premise that the assessee had not filed his return. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequential assessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order on legal grounds, particularly concerning limitation. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept gifts from parents as a source for cash deposits and allowed a portion of the cash deposits as explained by past savings and withdrawals.