Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal noted that all payments for business expenses were made through banking channels and proper explanations and supporting documents were provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had disallowed the remaining 50% without providing any valid reason. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the balance 50% of the claimed expenses.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the assessee's submission. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as having become infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal on account of delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to condone the significant delay, despite repeated opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the payment of ₹ 44,51,267/- for leave encashment in AY 2017-18 is allowable under Section 43B(f) of the Act, irrespective of when the provision was made. It clarified that appellate authorities, unlike Assessing Officers, have the power to admit additional grounds, citing the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. and Jai Parabolic Springs Limited. The AO was directed to allow the deduction upon verification of payment evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the 13-day delay, acknowledging sufficient cause. It noted that the assessee, being an old trust, should have applied under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) rather than seeking provisional registration. Citing that the rejection was based on non-compliance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemptions)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, providing the assessee another opportunity to present details.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection in limine was not on merits but due to non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present all necessary documents for registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days, accepting the assessee's bona fide reason of non-receipt of notice for CIT(A) proceedings. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity, with a caution for cooperation.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the Departmental Representative did not object to the request. The assessee was granted the liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if they are unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 scheme for any reason.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on most issues, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding club expenses and other deductions. However, the assessee's appeal regarding weighted deduction under Section 35(2)(ab) was partly allowed, remanding it to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on most issues, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding club expenses and other deductions. However, the assessee's appeal regarding weighted deduction under Section 35(2)(ab) was partly allowed, remanding it to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on most issues, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding club expenses and other deductions. However, the assessee's appeal regarding weighted deduction under Section 35(2)(ab) was partly allowed, remanding it to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on most issues, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding club expenses and other deductions. However, the assessee's appeal regarding weighted deduction under Section 35(2)(ab) was partly allowed, remanding it to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee, a Customer Service Point (CSP) operator, had marginal income and that the CIT(A) had properly considered fresh evidence submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) had called for a remand report, and the AO failed to identify any discrepancies or comment on the assessee's CSP activities. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on most issues, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding club expenses and other deductions. However, the assessee's appeal regarding weighted deduction under Section 35(2)(ab) was partly allowed, remanding it to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on delay without properly considering the assessee's claim that the appeal was filed within the statutory period from the date of receipt of the order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits, instructing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidence regarding timely filing.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's primary contention that the credit cards linked to the unexplained expenses did not belong to them. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO to conduct a fresh examination to determine the ownership of the credit cards and provide the assessee a fair opportunity to present all relevant documents.