Loading ITAT cases…
471 tribunal orders from the Indore bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 471 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Pr. CIT exercising powers under Section 263 as the AO had wrongly allowed the claim without proper examination. However, the Tribunal modified the direction to the AO, allowing expenses for furniture and air conditioners if they were part of the contract for the new house construction.
The Tribunal held that mere filing of an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective persuasion. Since the assessee was not present and did not arrange for representation, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the assessee being free to file a fresh application if Form No. 5 was not issued by the department.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity to be heard and the AO passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted inquiries, and the Pr. CIT did not demonstrate how these inquiries were insufficient. The Pr. CIT should have conducted further inquiry himself rather than remitting the issue to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was bad in law because the Assessing Officer's notice was not specific, failing to mention the exact charge for levying the penalty. This lack of clarity rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal found that the transactions were through banking channels and supported by documentation. It noted that the revenue authorities did not make sufficient efforts to verify the claims. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was not specific as it did not clearly state whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the transactions were through banking channels and supported by documentation. It noted that the revenue authorities did not make sufficient efforts to verify the claims. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the transactions were through banking channels and supported by documentation. It noted that the revenue authorities did not make sufficient efforts to verify the claims. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence to prove that the advance was made for business expediency. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that Form 10BB is required only after registration is granted. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.
The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to file miscellaneous applications if they did not receive the final form from the revenue within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry by examining the sale agreement, family partition memorandum, and bank passbook. The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the revenue authorities to charge fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could only be levied for defaults occurring on or after this date.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry by examining the sale agreement, family partition memorandum, and bank passbook. The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiry by examining the sale agreement, family partition memorandum, and bank passbook. The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the expenditure crystallized in AY 2007-08, the assessee was justified in claiming it as an expenditure for that year. The system of accounting (cash vs. mercantile) was not relevant as the amount was an advance that became an expenditure in the relevant year.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was correct in directing the AO to examine the admissibility of agricultural income. However, the direction for a de novo assessment was modified to restrict the AO's examination solely to the agricultural income issue.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel did not wish to press the appeal. The departmental representative did not object to this submission.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.