Loading ITAT cases…
48 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when tax is levied under MAT provisions (Section 115JB) and the additions/disallowances are made under normal provisions, especially for assessment years prior to 2016-17, as per CBDT Circular No. 25/2015.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition for undisclosed business profit as the reconciliation of inventories proved satisfactory. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for education cess as a business expense, relying on previous judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to a lack of proper examination of issues like interest income and the purchase/sale of plots. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value as income from undisclosed sources. The AO should have considered the sale consideration as the actual sale price unless there was evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to fully explain the cash deposits, the addition should be restricted to the peak cash balance in the account. The assessee is a bank employee and had made cash deposits and withdrawals without sufficient evidence of their source.
The Tribunal held that the relinquishment of rights without consideration is in the nature of a gift and is covered under Section 47(iii) of the Act, which exempts gifts from capital gains. Consequently, Section 50C cannot be invoked in such cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share application money, finding that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for legal and professional expenses, noting that the assessee had provided all necessary details and deducted TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for unsecured loans, expenses, scrap purchase, and capital gains, and the CIT(A) had rightly considered these.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, considering the High Court's directions and the period of stay. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, considering the High Court's directions and the period of stay. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that no disallowance is called for under section 36(1)(va) if the employee and employer contributions to PF/ESIC are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, even if there was a delay in depositing as per the specific PF/ESIC due dates.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to justify the income from the mini bus business. The addition made by invoking Section 115BBE was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions as no incriminating evidence pertaining to undisclosed sales was found or seized during the search. The AO's additions were based on statements that were later retracted or lacked corroboration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, considering the High Court's directions and the period of stay. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, considering the High Court's directions and the period of stay. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, considering the High Court's directions and the period of stay. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, considering the High Court's directions and the period of stay. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, considering the High Court's directions and the period of stay. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions as no incriminating evidence pertaining to undisclosed sales was found or seized during the search. The AO's additions were based on statements that were later retracted or lacked corroboration.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on statements recorded during a search, without corroborating incriminating material, are not sustainable. However, an addition for an unexplained unsecured loan was confirmed due to lack of creditworthiness and genuineness evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements processed under Section 200A is not justifiable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements processed under Section 200A is not justifiable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements processed under Section 200A is not justified for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is not justified for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees as withdrawn. However, the assessees were permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was rejected by the revenue for any reason.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, as the assessee was not willing to pursue them due to the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they couldn't participate in the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, as the assessee was not willing to pursue them due to the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee was permitted to file a recall application if their application under the scheme was not accepted or if they couldn't participate in the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements processed under Section 200A is not justifiable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of TDS statements is not justifiable for statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal found the tax effect was below the Rs. 50 lakh limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. It rejected the Revenue's audit objection argument due to lack of evidence, holding that the circulars are mandatory. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
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 is not justifiable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and 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 Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in admitting additional evidence as the Assessing Officer had provided a remand report. The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the cash deposit addition, sustaining Rs. 4,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents like balance sheets, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The AO's failure to conduct adequate inquiry and mere suspicion were insufficient to justify the addition.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT (Exemption). The order was passed without proper consideration of the merits of the case.
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.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the disputed matter was not exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Following CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delays in filing TDS statements processed under Section 200A is not sustainable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees imposed.
The Tribunal 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.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for delays in filing TDS statements processed under Section 200A is not sustainable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Following its previous decisions, the Tribunal deleted the fees imposed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals were directed against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning the determination of capital gains on the sale of immovable property. The core issue revolved around the consideration shown in the sale deed versus the assessed value.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of the scrap arising from the demolition of the building is an integral part of the capital asset and should be included in the total sale consideration for computing capital gains.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals were directed against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning the determination of capital gains on the sale of immovable property. The core issue revolved around the consideration shown in the sale deed versus the assessed value.
The Tribunal found that both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte orders without proper hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees as withdrawn. The assessees are free to file a recall application if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application is rejected or they are unable to participate in the scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees as withdrawn. The assessees are free to file a recall application if their 'Vivad se Vishwas' application is rejected or they are unable to participate in the scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee and the cross-objection by the revenue, as the matter was settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme.