Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 2 of 2
The ITAT held that the contribution to an unapproved gratuity fund is not allowable under Section 36(1)(v). Regarding TDS, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was held to be prospective, meaning the benefit of the 30% restriction was not available for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that a lump sum commission income of 2% of the undisclosed sum would meet the interest of justice, drawing support from judicial precedents on accommodation entry businesses. This decision was not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal found no merit in the PCIT's revision action. Citing a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts, the Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in law and fact by assuming revision jurisdiction, and the original assessment order was restored.
The Tribunal held that a lump sum commission income of 2% of the undisclosed sum would meet the interest of justice, drawing support from judicial precedents on accommodation entry businesses. This decision was not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had obtained an audited report before the due date as per Section 44AB. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was wrongly levied.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without rejecting the assessee's books of account or following the procedure for Best Judgment Assessment as prescribed under Section 145(3) and Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance was arbitrary and not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities. Following Supreme Court precedent, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the purchase and payments was not disputed by the AO. Considering the assessee's modus operandi and previous rulings, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the genuineness of the expenditure.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities. Following Supreme Court precedent, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have properly verified the signature on the VDIS form, especially since the assessee denied opting for the scheme. The AO could have used handwriting expert opinion or comparison of signatures as per the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities. Following Supreme Court precedent, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal decided that such a defective notice renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without deciding on merits is not permissible. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee was prevented by a just cause from appearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that income from car parking space, PLC, and HEC are integral parts of a housing project and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). It also held that the compensation paid for eviction was an allowable business expenditure due to commercial expediency and that no TDS was deductible on such compensation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to the actual exempt income.