Loading ITAT cases…
139 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that Section 10(23C)(iiiae) does not mandate that income must be generated from the philanthropic activity itself. The key requirements are that the institution exists solely for philanthropic purposes, not for profit, and its annual receipts do not exceed the prescribed limit. The Tribunal found that the appellant met these conditions.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no reason to interfere with the assessment of commission income at 0.5% of the total deposits. The assessee's appeal against this commission income was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the grounds related to the validity of reopening and the estimation of sales/purchases. The addition of Rs. 1,40,000/- received from the mother was also confirmed due to lack of supporting documentation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reason to be genuine. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction, finding that the AO had not adequately examined the capital gains claimed as exempt. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the issue. The Assessing Officer is directed to properly consider the evidences furnished by the assessee, and the director is to appear if required.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the disallowance of Rs. 2,76,37,683/- as the assessee failed to provide evidence of payment or prove it was an ascertained liability. No one appeared for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the payment was made before the filing of the return of income. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was incorrect. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 43B was not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court's decision.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer after verifying the genuineness of expenses through bank statements and other documents during remand proceedings. The assessee had sufficiently explained the expenditures.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was previously remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remanded the current issue to the AO for reconsideration after the assessee provides necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits. The appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not estimate the net profit without rejecting the assessee's books of account. Since the books were not rejected by either the AO or the CIT(A), the estimation of net profit was not legally tenable.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment. This was to consider the developments from the search and the recorded statement, ensuring tax is assessed on the right person and income.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was previously remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remanded the current issue to the AO for reconsideration after the assessee provides necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that dismissing an appeal for a one-day delay is not fair and violates natural justice. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest. This was based on the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. Vijayshree Ltd., which allowed such payments if made before the return filing due date, as the Explanation to Section 43B was not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities should assist assessees in filing correct returns and not act as penal bodies for bona fide mistakes. The assessee was allowed to furnish the Form 10B in physical form to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities should assist assessees in filing correct returns and not act as penal bodies for bona fide mistakes. The assessee was allowed to furnish the Form 10B in physical form to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed their orders mechanically without considering the assessee's categorical stand that they had not dealt in the alleged shares. Therefore, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, which was introduced later, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities should not penalize assessees for bona fide mistakes and should assist them in filing correct returns. Since the assessee eventually furnished Form 10BB, the Assessing Officer was directed to consider it and pass a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are not retrospective and do not apply to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as the deposits were made before the due date of filing the return of income. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, inserted in 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly exercised revisionary powers as the assessee had no exempt income during the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The AO's reasons for belief were not supported by tangible material, and the approval for reopening was mechanically granted under a non-existent section.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as the deposits were made before the due date of filing the return of income. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, inserted in 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.