Loading ITAT cases…
389 tribunal orders from the Jodhpur bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 389 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was availing the presumptive scheme under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain detailed books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.
The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.
The Tribunal held that the search was illegal and unjustified as it was conducted based on a wrong PAN and without proper application of mind. The nexus between the assessee and the society was not established prior to the search.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of shares using the DCF method was acceptable and not subject to AO's substitution of his own value. However, issues regarding unexplained creditors and expenses paid to relatives were not substantiated by the assessee before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the foreign donation qualified as a corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the utilization of funds for loan repayment was with the donor's consent and did not violate the provisions, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of shares using the DCF method was acceptable and not subject to AO's substitution of his own value. However, issues regarding unexplained creditors and expenses paid to relatives were not substantiated by the assessee before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the foreign donation qualified as a corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the utilization of funds for loan repayment was with the donor's consent and did not violate the provisions, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the foreign donation qualified as a corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the utilization of funds for loan repayment was with the donor's consent and did not violate the provisions, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not go beyond the scope of limited scrutiny initiated by the AO. Since the AO's notice under Section 142(1) specified limited scrutiny, the PCIT's revisional order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest products' are distinct from 'forest produce' and are not covered under Section 206C(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on these products.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest products' are distinct from 'forest produce' and are not covered under Section 206C(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on these products.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.
The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing the consultant's inability to present the case effectively before lower authorities. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.
The Tribunal held that 'minor forest product' is distinct from 'forest produce' as defined in Section 206C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to collect TCS on the sale of minor forest produce.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 was bad in law due to the absence of the mandatory approval from the higher authority as required by Section 151. This defect was not curable under Section 292B.
The Tribunal held that the AO acted beyond jurisdiction by withdrawing TDS credit under Section 154, as it requires more than just mechanical rectification. The execution of work and other evidence should have been considered.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was unwarranted as the AO did not point out specific discrepancies. Furthermore, the estimated GP rate was not based on comparable data from the previous year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was vital and that the case should be remanded back to the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was also given liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without properly adjudicating all grounds. The issue raised in ground 3 regarding the estimation of commission income was not addressed.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was vital and that the case should be remanded back to the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was also given liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made a factual error in its observation regarding the decision on the penalty appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to be granted a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' requires it to be waste from manufacture or mechanical working and not usable as such. It also considered that if buyers have paid taxes on their returned income or provided Form 27BA, the assessee might not be liable. The factual aspects regarding the nature of goods sold and the applicability of Form 27BA were not sufficiently examined.
The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' requires it to be waste from manufacture or mechanical working and not usable as such. It also considered that if buyers have paid taxes on their returned income or provided Form 27BA, the assessee might not be liable. The factual aspects regarding the nature of goods sold and the applicability of Form 27BA were not sufficiently examined.
The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'scrap' requires it to be waste from manufacture or mechanical working and not usable as such. It also considered that if buyers have paid taxes on their returned income or provided Form 27BA, the assessee might not be liable. The factual aspects regarding the nature of goods sold and the applicability of Form 27BA were not sufficiently examined.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's processing of the return under Section 143(1) was flawless as the excess depreciation was not claimed in the relevant reports. The assessee failed to provide evidence of a mistake or a rectification petition.