Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries as per the limited scrutiny and that the issues raised by the Principal Commissioner were either adequately examined or beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. Therefore, the revision proceedings were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the revision order was passed against a person who was not a legal representative of the deceased assessee. Since the revenue could not provide any material to prove the appellant's legal representative status, the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1 crore surrendered by the assessee should not attract Section 115BBE as it was business income. However, the undisclosed income attributable to excess cash of Rs. 9,68,572/- would attract Section 115BBE. The disallowance of Rs. 21,59,044/- as Fringe Benefit Tax was deleted as it represented genuine business expenses.
The Tribunal set aside the orders to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The penalty appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the orders to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The penalty appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of notice under Section 143(2) beyond the statutory time limit is a violation of a mandatory provision. Therefore, the assessment order passed was illegal and void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Act, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods before this amendment was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Act, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have the enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods before this amendment was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Act, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have an enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods before this amendment was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Act, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have the enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods before this amendment was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Act, prior to its amendment effective from June 1, 2015, did not have the enabling provision to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, the levy of late fees for periods before this amendment was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not have the enabling provision. It also found that the assessee correctly calculated TDS deductible on net salary after Chapter VI-A deductions, not gross salary, thus no short-deduction occurred.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits, citing evidence of recovery of loans and funds received from his deceased mother. The penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted as it was based on the addition that was now deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid at 24% on business loans should be fully deductible, as the assessee provided a reasonable explanation for the higher rate and the revenue authorities lacked cogent basis for disallowance. However, the disallowance of the donation was upheld as the assessee failed to prove it was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1 crore surrendered by the assessee should not attract Section 115BBE as it was business income. However, the undisclosed income attributable to excess cash of Rs. 9,68,572/- would attract Section 115BBE. The disallowance of Rs. 21,59,044/- as Fringe Benefit Tax was deleted as it represented genuine business expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the explanation provided. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not have the enabling provision. It also found that the assessee correctly calculated TDS deductible on net salary after Chapter VI-A deductions, not gross salary, thus no short-deduction occurred.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015, as Section 200A did not have the enabling provision. It also found that the assessee correctly calculated TDS deductible on net salary after Chapter VI-A deductions, not gross salary, thus no short-deduction occurred.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the explanation provided. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the explanation provided. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not adequately investigated the joint development agreement, as the inquiry was limited to unsecured loans and not the capital gains implications of the agreement. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was justified.
The Tribunal found that the issue remained undecided and for the ends of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the issue afresh after granting an opportunity of being heard and considering any evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, as an adjournment request was not considered. Therefore, the revision order was deemed unjust.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA, the CIT(E) should only examine the objects and genuineness of activities, not issues related to the application of income or benefits to specified persons under Section 13(3). Such matters are to be examined during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the impugned LTCG as income from adventure in the nature of trade, as agreed by the assessee and not opposed by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF/ESI paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B (i.e., before the due date for filing the return of income) are allowable as a deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the delay in appointing statutory auditors and the consequent delay in completing statutory and tax audits constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The assessee is free to file a recall application if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the delay in statutory audit, not attributable to the assessee, constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in completing the statutory audit, which was beyond the assessees' control, constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, accepting the assessee's declared sales figures as they were close to the maximum retail price (MRP) and noting no specific defects in the expenditure side. The rejection of books was primarily due to sales documentation issues, not expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the delay in appointing statutory auditors and the consequent delay in completing statutory and tax audits constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to consider any evidence they may file.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for charitable purposes and eligible for exemption under Section 11. The previous order of a co-ordinate bench on similar issues for earlier assessment years was followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of repacking edible oil, involving segregation, mixing, and enhancing nutritional value, along with manufacturing packing materials, qualifies as manufacturing. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the property sold was a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, and thus, capital gains were chargeable. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities were not justified. Relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches and various High Courts, the Tribunal found that the employee's contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed as an expenditure.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF/ESI, even if paid after the due dates under PF/ESI laws but within the time allowed under Section 43B (i.e., by the due date for filing the return of income), are allowable as a deduction. The recent amendments through the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the authorities were not justified. Relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches and various High Courts, the Tribunal found that the employee's contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowed as an expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was not justified. It was observed that the issue of whether MPMKVVCL qualifies as 'Government' for the purpose of Rule 6DD(b) is debatable and cannot be adjusted under Section 143(1). The appeals were therefore allowed.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that submissions were made and set aside the NFAC's order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on the uploaded submissions.
The Tribunal held that the loans from the specified companies were genuine, as supported by various ITAT decisions. Consequently, the additions on account of commission and interest related to these loans were also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for loans from Jayant Securities and Kavya Shares, citing previous ITAT decisions. However, the issue of a loan from Rishikesh Infrastructure and cash credits from Nilesh Jain were remanded back to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case. Citing a co-ordinate bench's decision on an identical issue, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C applies to unexplained expenditure that is real, not notional. The stamp duty valuation is for stamp duty collection and does not represent actual expenditure by the assessee. Therefore, the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the collection and deposit of the impugned amount to be genuine and supported by corroborative evidence. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69 was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence for proper adjudication and set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned order after considering the additional evidence and granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was not justified. It was observed that the issue of whether MPMKVVCL qualifies as 'Government' for the purpose of Rule 6DD(b) is debatable and cannot be adjusted under Section 143(1). The appeals were therefore allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the assessee had deposited the employee's contribution within the time limit permitted under Section 43B of the Act, which is up to the due date for filing the return of income. The Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements, including a coordinate bench decision.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.