Loading ITAT cases…
570 tribunal orders from the Indore bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 570 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to bring any tangible evidence to prove that the assessee suppressed the purchase price or made payments from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal also noted that the relevant provisions for taxing the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation were not applicable to the assessee (a partnership firm) for the assessment year in question.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order. The tribunal ruled that the reassessment was invalid because the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice, as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was also informed that they could file a recall application if the benefit of the scheme was denied by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that ownership of the manufacturing unit, plant, and machinery is not a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Section 80IC. The source of raw materials and technology is also irrelevant for determining manufacturing activity. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had indeed made specific inquiries regarding the corpus donations and the assessee had provided sufficient details. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act to file an appeal against an order passed by the authorities under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the income admitted during survey, even if offered as business income, attracted Section 115BBE due to its nature as unexplained income from undisclosed sources. The revision order passed by the Pr. CIT was deemed valid.
The tribunal held that a statement made during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act does not have evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent evidence. Additions made solely on the basis of such a statement are unlawful.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, stating that assessments under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's liquidation status and the difficulty in receiving notices. It decided to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the share application money was received and credited in the books of account in AY 2010-11, not the year under appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to take action for AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the share application money was received and credited in the books of account in AY 2010-11, not the year under appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to take action for AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have taken cognizance of the revised computation and allowed the set off of brought forward business loss and depreciation. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant the set off after verification.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without complying with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was illegal as Section 200A did not have the enabling provision to charge such fees before that date. Therefore, the late fees were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO was correct in allowing the deduction under Section 80P on the interest income, as it was covered by a coordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent at various stages and there was no confirmation of service of hearing notices. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) made a drafting mistake in deleting the Section 14A disallowance and upheld the AO's disallowance. Regarding Section 68, the tribunal found discrepancies in the creditworthiness of the party and remanded the issue to the CIT(A). The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 36(1)(iii) disallowance, upholding the AO's addition.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as there was no increase in the Citi Bank loan during the year, while the loan to Shri Prahlad Das Goyal significantly increased. The assessee also had sufficient own capital and interest-free advances available.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent at various stages and there was no confirmation of service of hearing notices. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiries into the expenses claimed for guarantee commission and sundry balances written off. Therefore, the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, justifying the PCIT's invocation of revisionary powers.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the presentation in the P&L account was a matter of detail and the aggregate claim was within the permissible limit. However, since the lower authorities had not verified the maximum permissible limit under Section 36(1)(viia), the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for this limited purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the admission of additional evidence, finding sufficient cause for the delay. Regarding the unexplained credits and Section 40A(3) disallowance, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the evidence and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E was illegally levied as Section 200A was amended to allow such levies only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for periods prior to this date, the levy was without authority of law.
The ITAT held that the Addl.CIT's approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without due application of mind, failing to meet statutory requirements. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The tribunal remanded the issue of registration u/s 12A/12AA to the AO to ascertain the status of the pending application. The disallowance of hotel expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found no error in deleting the protective addition as the assessee was engaged in brokerage/commission income and the beneficiaries' details were available. The commission addition was also deleted as the assessee had already offered a higher amount as commission income, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the Supreme Court's suo motu extension during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the late fee levied under Section 234E.