Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found the addition unsustainable as the primary evidence (invoice) was not in the assessee's name and the AO's observation about non-submission of reply was incorrect. However, to bring finality, the Tribunal allowed the addition to the extent of presumptive income at 20% of the alleged purchase amount, directing that Section 115BBE would not apply.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was flawed as it did not properly compute the total income. It also ruled that interest earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred by the erstwhile private limited company, a separate legal entity, cannot be apportioned to claim a loss in the LLP. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 45,01,274/- as it pertained to a prior period of conversion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied exemption under Section 11/12 for mere delay in filing the audit report, especially when filed before the assessment processing. The matter was remanded to the AO for recomputing the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10E should not result in the denial of substantial relief if the assessee is otherwise entitled to it. The time limit for filing Form 10E should be construed liberally in the given circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied exemption under Section 11/12 for mere delay in filing the audit report, especially when filed before the assessment processing. The matter was remanded to the AO for recomputing the exemption.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for due verification of TDS amounts deducted and paid. The assessee demonstrated full payment of TDS, but verification was deemed necessary.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice and the need for proper adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee was directed to participate effectively in the fresh proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the audit report was filed within the due date, despite a minor discrepancy in dates. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. This was due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's failure to properly present its case.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not adjudicated on merits and that new evidence regarding agricultural activities was presented at the second appellate stage. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of medical expenses for a key employee's critical surgery, authorized by a board resolution and debited to employee benefit expenses, is a business expenditure. The expenditure was considered to be incurred for the commercial expediency of the company.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained if the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3) without drawing adverse inferences for non-compliance. The imposition of penalty without establishing deliberate default is not warranted.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.
The Tribunal held that the characterization of the income as business or investment is a debatable issue. The assessee's bona fide belief that it was an investment constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the audit requirement.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the Audit Report (Form 10B) is a procedural lapse and should not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11/12, especially when the report was filed before the AO's intimation. The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation of income and allowing exemption.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained if the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3) without drawing adverse inferences for non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that the facts were identical to other group concerns where similar penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were violated as the AO passed an order without affording an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 1,04,49,307/- was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the penalty order under Section 271B and its sustenance by the CIT(A) might have become infructuous due to the subsequent fresh assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by accepting the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing.