Loading ITAT cases…
38 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits, as they were from prior withdrawals from the same bank account and the revenue had not disputed these withdrawals. The AO's aggregation of deposits as unexplained income was considered incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's clarification clearly stated that payments to Project Implementing Agencies under the MKSP scheme attract TDS under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee's deduction was correct.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the audit report along with the return of income is a procedural defect, not a reason to deny exemption if the report was available and filed subsequently. The assessee should not be denied exemption for a mere delay in filing.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable when expenses are duly recorded in the books of account and their source is explained. The disallowances were made for want of supporting bills and vouchers, which requires verification.
The Tribunal held that the opening cash balance of Rs. 2,51,760/- as reflected in the previous year's balance sheet was duly supported. However, the Rs. 45,000/- claimed as loans lacked sufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's condonation application, agreeing with the revenue's submission that the delay was not bona fide. The Tribunal held that the handling of the order within the assessee's internal system was not a valid reason to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to explain the delay and without issuing a show cause notice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was illegal and unsustainable because the show-cause notice issued by the AO was vague, containing both charges of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars without striking off one. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide any explanation or substantiation for the cash loan, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the SBI savings account represented turnover of the assessee. However, since the assessee had not disclosed this bank account, the addition should be restricted to the Gross Profit (GP) rate on the said deposits, rather than the entire deposit amount.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was not in accordance with the law. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that interest income from providing credit facilities to members and interest earned from deposits with other co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The AO and CIT(A) did not examine these aspects properly.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's condonation application, agreeing with the revenue's submission that the delay was not bona fide. The Tribunal held that the handling of the order within the assessee's internal system was not a valid reason to condone the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the assessee's attempt to pursue an alternative remedy with the AO. The assessment order was set aside as it was passed without considering the DRP's fresh directions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase and sale through SEBI registered brokers, bank accounts, and demat accounts, to establish the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO had not discharged the onus of proving the transactions as bogus.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's lack of awareness due to non-receipt of notices and orders. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the Pr. Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order as the issue had already been considered and decided in the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A), invoking the principle of merger.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of share transactions. The AO failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the transactions were bogus.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase and sale through SEBI registered brokers, bank accounts, and demat accounts, to establish the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO had not discharged the onus of proving the transactions as bogus.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 regarding the estimation of income on undisclosed turnover, as the AO had conducted inquiries and the issue was settled under the VSV scheme. The issue of cash loans was not set aside by the Pr. CIT.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the case back for reconsideration. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the assessee's application for 80G registration on its merits.
The Tribunal found that the denial of exemption was based on technical reasons, such as an inadvertent error in declaring income and non-filing of the trust deed. It was decided that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction for some issues where the AO had failed to conduct necessary inquiries. However, for other issues, the Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's observations were not supported by facts or that the AO's actions were sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction for certain issues where the AO had not made proper inquiries, such as capital contributions, unsecured loans, and additions to fixed assets. However, for other issues like fixed asset WDV difference and cash deposits during demonetization, the AO had made sufficient inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) corroborates the assessee's claim of prior registration. Therefore, the issue of exemption under sections 11 & 12 was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of proportionate interest disallowance was also set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock, which was part of the assessee's regular business inventory and offered as business income, could not be brought under the mischief of Section 69B. The provisions of Section 69B are not attracted when the excess stock is not separable from the entire stock generated from business activity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the seized document was not conclusively linked to the assessee's sales and that the assessee's claim for pro-rata deduction under Section 80-IB(10) was valid even with minor violations.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESIC made after the due date is justified, following the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. The delay in deposit means the deduction is not allowable.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO had misconducted himself by rejecting the books of account without proper justification and ignoring undisputed facts. The tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence and delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that excess stock, which is inseparable from the regular business stock and generated from business activity, cannot be brought under the mischief of Section 69B. Therefore, it should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the Revenue's consent, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the credit card expenses belonged to the company, as evidenced by the company's ledger account. Therefore, any disallowance should be made in the hands of the company, not the assessee. The remaining difference was also accepted due to lack of complete information from the department.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for proper adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure participation in future hearings.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed the order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without disposing of adjournment requests. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed the order without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without disposing of adjournment requests. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that the revision order, which formed the basis of the impugned order, had been quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned order also stood nullified. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be due to administrative changes and not malafide intention. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(E) erred in passing the order without considering the assessee's adjournment request.