Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the interest subsidies and duty-free scrips received under the Technology Upgradation Fund, Focus Market Scheme, and Focus Product Scheme are capital receipts. These amounts are not to be treated as income and should be excluded from the assessee's total income.
The Tribunal held that additions based on digital data and Excel sheets without proper authentication (like Section 65B certificate) and without corroborative evidence are based on conjecture. The Tribunal also noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of third parties.
The Tribunal held that additions based on digital data and Excel sheets without proper authentication (like Section 65B certificate) and without corroborative evidence are based on conjecture. The Tribunal also noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of third parties.
The Tribunal held that additions based on digital data and Excel sheets without proper authentication (like Section 65B certificate) and without corroborative evidence are based on conjecture. The Tribunal also noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of third parties.
The Tribunal held that additions based on digital data and Excel sheets without proper authentication (like Section 65B certificate) and without corroborative evidence are based on conjecture. The Tribunal also noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of third parties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation with supporting documentary evidence for the investment, including a credit facility agreement with an NBFC and direct disbursement of funds. Therefore, Section 69 was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the purchases based on documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that income pertaining to earlier years cannot be taxed in the current assessment year simply because its source is not explained for the current year. It also directed that credit for income already offered by the assessee under Section 153A must be allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessment and appeal orders were passed ex-parte in gross violation of natural justice due to improper service of notices. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without a proper examination of the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that income pertaining to earlier years cannot be taxed in the current assessment year simply because its source is not explained for the current year. It also directed that credit for income already offered by the assessee under Section 153A must be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the income surrendered during the survey was business income and could not be taxed under Section 69A/69B read with Section 115BBE. The assessee had rightly offered this additional income under the head 'business income'.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition because the High Court had dismissed the department's appeal on the same issue. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was sustained.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of any exempt income earned, and the amendment was prospective. Regarding Section 36(1)(va), a one-day delay in PF deposit was condoned due to practical reasons, allowing the deduction. For Section 80IA, the disallowance was deleted as the AO failed to establish a nexus between common expenses and eligible units, and the deduction had been consistently allowed in prior years.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer had relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind or corroborative inquiry, rendering the proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the trust's application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G afresh, considering the subsequent registration under the RPT Act and any deficiencies in the application form.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had an arguable case regarding the source of the cash deposit. It was deemed appropriate to give the assessee another opportunity to explain the source before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The banking transactions supported the share acquisition, and the statement, even if considered valid, denied any cash payment. The reliance on the Supreme Court judgment was found to be factually distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the trust's application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G afresh, considering the subsequent registration under the RPT Act and any deficiencies in the application form.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible in the absence of any exempt income earned, and the amendment was prospective. Regarding Section 36(1)(va), a one-day delay in PF deposit was condoned due to practical reasons, allowing the deduction. For Section 80IA, the disallowance was deleted as the AO failed to establish a nexus between common expenses and eligible units, and the deduction had been consistently allowed in prior years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. It found that the department did not unearth any incriminating material during the search and that the relied-upon judgments were distinguishable on facts.
The Tribunal held that income pertaining to earlier years cannot be taxed in the current assessment year simply because its source is not explained for the current year. It also directed that credit for income already offered by the assessee under Section 153A must be allowed.
The Tribunal held that income pertaining to earlier years cannot be taxed in the current assessment year simply because its source is not explained for the current year. It also directed that credit for income already offered by the assessee under Section 153A must be allowed.
The Tribunal held that income pertaining to earlier years cannot be taxed in the current assessment year simply because its source is not explained for the current year. It also directed that credit for income already offered by the assessee under Section 153A must be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal deleted the addition, holding that it was made without proper documentary evidence and without allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the developer.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a DVO's report without independent material is invalid, and additions based on double counting or without rejecting books of account are unjustified. The Tribunal also noted that local PWD rates should be preferred over CPWD rates for construction cost estimation.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a DVO's report without independent material is invalid, and additions based on double counting or without rejecting books of account are unjustified. The Tribunal also noted that local PWD rates should be preferred over CPWD rates for construction cost estimation.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the matter on merits and violated principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a DVO's report without independent material is invalid, and additions based on double counting or without rejecting books of account are unjustified. The Tribunal also noted that local PWD rates should be preferred over CPWD rates for construction cost estimation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were void ab initio and consequently quashed the assessment orders. The Tribunal also found that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on estimations without sufficient evidence and were therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the matter on merits and violated principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the matter on merits and violated principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the matter on merits and violated principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.