Loading ITAT cases…
165 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing deduction for Phase-I of the housing project. It agreed that Phase-I met the conditions for Section 80IB(10) deduction, while other phases did not.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loan was used for the business of the proprietary concern, as evidenced by the assessee's personal balance sheet and the concern's balance sheet. Therefore, the interest expenditure was a legitimate business expense.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's interest income from investments is not per se eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction on a netting basis, considering interest income from specific types of deposits as attributable to the business of providing credit facilities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance due to non-receipt of notices, as supported by an affidavit. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found the assessee's pleadings prima facie correct and restored the issue of correctness of impugned cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider peak credit and telescoping benefits.
The ITAT found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay costs of ₹5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done due to the violation of principles of natural justice at the assessment stage.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs and therefore fell within the scope of the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions arbitrarily without pointing out deficiencies in the documents provided or sharing any adverse material with the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut any adverse material.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served on the assessee within the stipulated time. Consequently, the assessment order framed without proper service of this mandatory notice was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeal as falling under the purview of the circular.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2.8 crores, finding the source of funds and identity of the giver to be genuine after a remand report and further inquiry. The CIT(A) also deleted the house property income addition, holding that the actual rent received should be considered as the annual letting value for an old tenanted property.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions arbitrarily without pointing out deficiencies in the documents provided or sharing any adverse material with the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut any adverse material.
The ITAT found that there was no effective service of notice on the assessee by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with statutory requirements. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the case afresh on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the difference in bank deposits and disclosed receipts.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that while the assessee was liable for not collecting TCS, the benefit of the proviso to Section 206C(6A) needed to be examined, which could absolve the assessee if the payers had complied with their tax obligations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that while the assessee was liable for not collecting TCS, the benefit of the proviso to Section 206C(6A) needed to be examined, which could absolve the assessee if the payers had complied with their tax obligations.
The Tribunal held that the issue of leave encashment was covered by its previous orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Regarding book profits, the Tribunal followed its own precedents and dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning Section 14A disallowances.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, holding that mesne profits are paid by a wrongful possessor, not received by them. Therefore, the amount received by the assessee, who was in wrongful possession after the lease expired, was not mesne profits in the legal sense.
The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of proper opportunity for the assessee to present its case and that the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the issue of leave encashment was covered by its previous orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Regarding book profits, the Tribunal followed its own precedents and dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning Section 14A disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the cost plus method was the most appropriate method to determine the ALP for the interest on loans. It found that the holding company's cost of funds was 12.5%, making the interest charged at 12.5% to be at arm's length.
The Tribunal found that no compliances were made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was consequential to a Section 263 direction that had been quashed by the ITAT. Therefore, the consequential order became non-est and infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that while the assessee was liable for not collecting TCS, the benefit of the proviso to Section 206C(6A) needed to be examined, which could absolve the assessee if the payers had complied with their tax obligations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that while the assessee was liable for not collecting TCS, the benefit of the proviso to Section 206C(6A) needed to be examined, which could absolve the assessee if the payers had complied with their tax obligations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that while the assessee was liable for not collecting TCS, the benefit of the proviso to Section 206C(6A) needed to be examined, which could absolve the assessee if the payers had complied with their tax obligations.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was not substantial and considered it a normal custom for women to receive jewellery as 'stree dhan' or on other occasions. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was considered arbitrary and not based on cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that municipal valuation determined in 1994 is not a reasonable yardstick for the assessment year 2011-12. The AO was justified in ignoring the old municipal valuation and determining the annual rental value based on market inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The disclosure was considered a conditional and ad-hoc offer, and since no independent evidence supported the undisclosed income, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the search, but rather on a conditional and ad-hoc disclosure. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to substantiate its grounds before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh verification and to allow the assessee to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted that details filed by the assessee were not referenced in the assessment order. Following precedent in similar cases, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh verification of the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribing companies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification of the share capital and premium details, subject to the assessee paying costs.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to deal with the assessee's objections on merits before completing the assessment renders the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the purchase transaction was not complete in the year under consideration as it was settled and goods were received in the following financial year. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who had restricted the addition to 0.5% of the total deposits, considering it as commission earned for providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal followed previous judgments on similar facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding administrative and establishment expenses. The assessee's appeal was allowed, implying the disallowance made by the AO was set aside.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it due to low tax effect. For the assessee's cross-objection, issues related to liabilities and factory rent were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its own previous order in the assessee's own case, found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Section 80-IB deduction and netting of interest income, following its own previous decisions. However, for the Section 14A disallowance, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of a Supreme Court judgment.