Loading ITAT cases…
624 tribunal orders from the Indore bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 624 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not legally correct in invoking provisions like Section 69A and 69C for certain additions, as these sections were not applicable to the facts of the case. Consequently, the applicability of Section 115BBE was also negated.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not legally correct in invoking provisions like Section 69A and 69C for certain additions, as these sections were not applicable to the facts of the case. Consequently, the applicability of Section 115BBE was also negated.
The Tribunal held that the addition was baseless and erroneous due to the absence of tangible evidence beyond the seller's statement. The AO's failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination also violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. It further ruled that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions for exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains from the sale of shares, as the shares were held for over a year and sold through a recognized stock exchange after paying STT.
The Tribunal held that the addition was baseless and erroneous due to the absence of tangible evidence beyond the seller's statement. The AO's failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination also violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a statement given during search proceedings without corroborating incriminating material. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a statement given during search proceedings without corroborating incriminating material. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not frivolous and that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share application money. The CIT(A) had already deleted a significant portion of the addition, indicating partial acceptance of the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had provided sufficient evidence, including sale deeds and land records, to prove the source of the deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his powers by initiating revision proceedings against an order passed by the AO pursuant to the Tribunal's specific directions. The Tribunal had previously directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim under Section 10(23C) and decide as per law.
The Tribunal held that charging nominal fees to cover costs for carrying out activities cannot be considered commercial. Since the assessee is imparting education and training, the benefit of Section 11 cannot be denied.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his powers by initiating revision proceedings against an order passed by the AO pursuant to the Tribunal's specific directions. The Tribunal had previously directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim under Section 10(23C) and decide as per law.
The Tribunal held that charging nominal fees to cover costs for carrying out activities cannot be considered commercial. Since the assessee is imparting education and training, the benefit of Section 11 cannot be denied.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his powers by initiating revision proceedings against an order passed by the AO pursuant to the Tribunal's specific directions. The Tribunal had previously directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim under Section 10(23C) and decide as per law.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his powers by initiating revision proceedings against an order passed by the AO pursuant to the Tribunal's specific directions. The Tribunal had previously directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim under Section 10(23C) and decide as per law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share application money. The CIT(A) had already deleted a significant portion of the addition, indicating partial acceptance of the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had provided sufficient evidence, including sale deeds and land records, to prove the source of the deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his powers by initiating revision proceedings against an order passed by the AO pursuant to the Tribunal's specific directions. The Tribunal had previously directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim under Section 10(23C) and decide as per law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had participated in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested the withdrawal of the appeal. The departmental representative did not object to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has applied under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 has been issued by the revenue. Therefore, the appeal was considered as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the employees' contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the CPC was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents supporting this view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The ITAT found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case, which was not just.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal, and the revenue representative did not object. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, it dismissed the appeals as not maintainable based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner passed an ex-parte order without properly examining the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that since the employees' contributions to PF and ESI were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit set by the CBDT. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court, stating that the CBDT circulars are mandatory for departmental authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the sundry creditors. The transactions were conducted through banking channels and were for business purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A) passed an order without properly examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT found the CIT(E) erred by not considering the new PAN and rejecting the 12AA application without a proper hearing. It quashed both the 12AA and consequential 80G orders, remanding the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for failing to comply with mandatory audit requirements. The magnitude of the transactions itself necessitates an audit.
The ITAT found the CIT(E) erred by not considering the new PAN and rejecting the 12AA application without a proper hearing. It quashed both the 12AA and consequential 80G orders, remanding the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan, deleting the addition as the funds were explained as belonging to her husband. For Shri Ram Singh Chouhan, the issue was remanded to the AO to determine if the agricultural land was a capital asset.
The Tribunal held that since the employees' contributions to PF and ESI were deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents supporting this view.