Loading ITAT cases…
706 tribunal orders from the Jaipur bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 706 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, finding that the assessee society's activities were not genuine and not in accordance with its objects. The Tribunal also found that the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 did not apply due to the operation of Section 13(1). Consequently, the cancellation of registration was affirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, finding that the assessee society's activities were not genuine and not in accordance with its objects. The Tribunal also found that the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 did not apply due to the operation of Section 13(1). Consequently, the cancellation of registration was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had offered a possible explanation which was rejected without proper examination, and no mens rea was proven.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to represent her case. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the AO had erroneously treated the assessee as an Association of Persons and had not properly considered the provisions of law. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity to represent her case. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that where employee's contributions to PF/ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO based solely on loose papers, without corroborative evidence like sale deeds or bank statements, was not justified. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion, stating that mere presumptions cannot lead to taxation.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO based solely on loose papers, without corroborative evidence like sale deeds or bank statements, was not justified. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion, stating that mere presumptions cannot lead to taxation.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was necessary for deciding the appeal and would not prejudice the revenue. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF/ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the Rs. 11,00,000/- cash payment through her own savings and loans from her husband, supported by cash flow statements and affidavits. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 125 days, holding that the explanation for the delay was bonafide and in line with the liberal approach required for condonation. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged that both parties have a duty to appear, but in the interest of justice and natural justice, one more opportunity for hearing should be granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO based solely on loose papers, without corroborative evidence like sale deeds or bank statements, was not justified. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this deletion, stating that mere presumptions cannot lead to taxation.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not valid as the Additional Commissioner mechanically approved it without proper application of mind. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to ESI/PF is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary verifications and enquiries regarding the bogus sales and the basis for taxing only 25% was not established. Therefore, the PCIT's order to revise the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to ESI/PF is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary verifications and enquiries regarding the bogus sales and the basis for taxing only 25% was not established. Therefore, the PCIT's order to revise the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the interest paid on borrowings for share purchases and advances was a legitimate business expenditure, and the disallowances made by the lower authorities were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary verifications and enquiries regarding the bogus sales and the basis for taxing only 25% was not established. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 50 days in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's explanation to be bonafide and in the interest of substantial justice. The appeal was admitted for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the interest paid on borrowings for share purchases and advances was a legitimate business expenditure, and the disallowances made by the lower authorities were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF and ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, it cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to the impugned assessment year.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it for want of representation. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the department accepting the application.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while a newly registered trust can apply for registration based on its proposed activities, an older entity that has not undertaken any activities for a long time requires closer scrutiny. The CIT(E) needs to examine the genuineness of proposed activities and compliance with laws.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's dispute settlement petition under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme was accepted. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had filed a declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the matter.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.