Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid, the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was unsustainable. This was because the bank transactions were already recorded in the assessee's books, and one of the bank accounts was not relevant to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that as long as there is a dispute or litigation regarding the right to receive payment, the income cannot be said to have accrued or arisen. Even if there are two views, the AO's order cannot be termed erroneous if it follows a view favourable to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued without considering the assessee's return of income, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order passed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the assessee's lack of awareness. The Tribunal set aside the revisionary order and remanded the matter back to the Principal Commissioner for re-adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that Section 54B primarily focuses on the investment of sale consideration for purchasing agricultural land, and it is not specified that the purchase must be in the assessee's own name. The Tribunal allowed the deduction for lands purchased in the names of the assessee's son and daughter, setting aside the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the onus to produce Nilesh Ajmera for cross-examination was on the AO, as the addition was based on third-party information. The AO's failure to provide this opportunity violated natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that interest on GST is compensatory and not penal, thus allowable. However, interest on delayed TDS payment is part of the assessee's tax liability and not an allowable business expenditure. The ad-hoc disallowance of travelling expenses was deleted as it was made without specific evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals summarily without adjudicating on the grounds on merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals summarily without adjudicating on the grounds on merits. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The additions sustained by the Tribunal were based on peak credit, and the assessee had disclosed the bank account and explained the source of deposits as commission-based transactions, which was not ruled out.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce necessary details and supporting evidence regarding the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was reasonable, as they only became aware of the order under section 143(1) on 22.02.2021. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in considering the assessee's charitable activities as commercial and directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant registration under Section 12AB.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(10AA)(i) for the 83 days of earned leave encashment. The denial of exemption by the lower authorities was set aside, following precedents from coordinate benches.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the case properly as per Section 250(6) and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of the assessee's statement during the search, which was an ad-hoc figure and not corroborated by tangible evidence. Relying on CBDT instructions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no merit in the addition.
The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings were vitiated due to a jurisdictional deficit. The PCIT failed to independently call for and examine the records as required by Section 263, rendering the revision order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in treating Rs. 49,76,484/- as short-term capital gain and not business income, and also correctly treated the income from land sale as long-term capital gain, not income from other sources. The AO's re-characterizations were deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action to re-open the assessment was invalid because the SEBI order, which formed the basis of the AO's belief, was subsequently vacated. Therefore, the entire proceeding initiated under Section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot assess or reassess income that was not the subject of the reasons recorded for reopening, unless it is in addition to the income that escaped assessment forming the basis of the notice. Following the decision in Jet Airways, the reassessment order was quashed on technical grounds.