Loading ITAT cases…
248 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The existence of the commission agents was proven, and the assessee had provided supporting evidence for the commission payments.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for under-valuation of sale consideration due to lack of evidence. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the re-opening of assessment was bad in law as it was initiated beyond four years without sufficient material. Furthermore, on merits, the Tribunal agreed that the assessee had utilized her own funds, including long-term capital gains, for the purchase of the flat.
The Tribunal remanded the leave encashment issue to the AO for decision based on the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal. The disallowance under Section 14A for normal computation was directed to be re-computed, and the disallowance for book profit computation was also remanded. The claim for additional depreciation was allowed.
The Tribunal decided to admit additional evidence regarding the nature of certain companies. The appeal was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering this evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of allotment rights of a flat, as it only applies to land and buildings. The expenditure claim was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to treat interest income from associate companies as 'income from other sources', finding no evidence of it being a business activity. It also restored the issue of suo moto disallowance of interest and fee to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that only the peak credit in the bank account, not the entire gross deposit, can be added as income. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to determine the peak credit.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective for not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's view and the Supreme Court's dismissal of a related SLP, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider calling for a Remand Report.
The Tribunal held that adverse inferences cannot be drawn solely based on the non-appearance of loan creditors in response to summons. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions for most creditors.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeal back for fresh disposal. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not consider the documentary evidence of the investors and lacked details about them. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an amount shown as cash sales by the assessee, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer, could not be added again as unexplained receipts, as this would amount to double addition. However, an addition for unexplained expenses due to variation in quantitative details was upheld.
The Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s direction for re-examination but also acknowledged the Revenue's argument regarding the omission of the power to remand from Section 251(1)(a). Consequently, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for independent examination.
The Tribunal held that normal depreciation can be considered a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of a charitable trust for application of income. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona was followed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to prosecute its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to grant three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date of filing the return. It also held that interest on delayed TDS is compensatory and deductible under Section 37, and an ad-hoc disallowance of truck operating expenses is not permissible when books are audited.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued several notices and the assessee had sought adjournments. However, in the interest of natural justice, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 Lacs for Revenue appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the gain should be treated as long-term capital gain. It allowed deduction for indexed cost of improvement and granted exemption under Section 54EC up to Rs. 50 lacs. For one assessee, it allowed exemption under Section 54F for investment in a new property.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not deleted the disallowance but merely directed verification, thus the revenue's ground was erroneous. For Section 14A, the Tribunal followed Supreme Court judgments regarding banking companies. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the non-applicability of Section 115JB.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata, did not have valid jurisdiction to pass the assessment order as the assessee's case was already centralized with the New Delhi authorities.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the exclusion of certain comparable companies. It directed the TPO to re-verify the eligibility of several companies based on specific filters like employee cost, related party transactions, and turnover.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment after four years, the AO must clearly state in the reasons recorded the specific facts or materials that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly during the original assessment. Without this, the reassessment proceedings are invalid.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, citing decisions from the Delhi Bench of ITAT and the Madhya Pradesh High Court. This means the appeal was dismissed without considering its merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the transactions. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for de novo assessment to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order by the same Tribunal had already quashed the CIT's Section 263 order, finding the AO's order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue. Therefore, the current appeals were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the gain should be treated as long-term capital gain. It allowed deduction for indexed cost of improvement and granted exemption under Section 54EC up to Rs. 50 lacs. For one assessee, it allowed exemption under Section 54F for investment in a new property.
The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect below the revised monetary limit are to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments. For administrative expenses, the issue was remanded to the AO to consider only investments yielding dividend.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments. For administrative expenses, the issue was remanded to the AO to consider only investments yielding dividend.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments. For administrative expenses, the issue was remanded to the AO to consider only investments yielding dividend.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date of filing the return. It also held that interest on delayed TDS is compensatory and deductible under Section 37, and an ad-hoc disallowance of truck operating expenses is not permissible when books are audited.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution is allowable under Section 43B if paid before the due date of filing the return. It also held that interest on delayed TDS is compensatory and deductible under Section 37, and an ad-hoc disallowance of truck operating expenses is not permissible when books are audited.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) was due to a change in address and non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect below the revised monetary limit are to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to produce documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchase. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since Damodar Valley Corporation was not a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, the provisions of Section 115JB were not applicable. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not attending the CIT(A) hearings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance and set aside the ex-parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A) which was not presented to the AO. There was no proof of notice being issued to the AO by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments. For administrative expenses, the issue was remanded to the AO to consider only investments yielding dividend.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.