Loading ITAT cases…
182 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide any evidence linking the Rs. 11,30,000 transaction to M/s Apex Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Since the basis for reopening and the addition was unsubstantiated, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced crucial evidence before the AO. However, considering the new evidence presented and the assessee's prayer, the issues were restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal held that Section 80AC(ii), which mandates timely filing for Section 80P deductions, was not applicable for AY 2019-20 as it came into effect from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the denial of deduction was invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of cash introduction and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to verify the availability of cash as on 31.03.2015 as per the partners' income tax returns and their cash flow statements.
The Tribunal held that since the registration under Section 12A was granted for the impugned assessment year and was available at the time of processing the return, the exemption should have been allowed. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by an officer without the requisite monetary jurisdiction, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). This decision was based on previous rulings by coordinate benches of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). This decision was based on previous rulings by coordinate benches of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent return filed on 02.10.21 was not a valid return as it lacked verification. Consequently, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) based on this unverified return was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay and the CIT(A) ought to have condoned it. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not conclusive and that advertisement expenses for business expansion are generally allowable. However, expenses without supporting vouchers are disallowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the claimed deduction for interest paid on the home loan. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148, as incriminating material was found during a search on a third party. The notice issued under Section 148 and the consequential assessment were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the Revenue had not clearly established the applicability of any exception clause. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding repayment of loans advanced to farmers needed further substantiation. Due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the assessee's request for an opportunity to present it, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD was not applicable due to the assessee's turnover exceeding the prescribed limit. It found the 8% profit rate excessive and agreed that the declared profit was not acceptable. The Tribunal determined a net profit rate of 4% as reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for issuing the Section 148 notice did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the notice and consequential assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment denying the rebate applies from assessment year 2026-27, not the impugned assessment year 2024-25. The adjustment made by the CPC was also not permissible under Section 143(1) for AY 2024-25.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(1). Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and the source of payments. The addition of the entire purchase amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary evidence to support the TDS claim, which the Assessing Officer was to verify and allow as per law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the claimed deduction for interest paid on the home loan. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence and confirmation letters filed by the assessee were necessary for adjudicating the issue and ought to have been admitted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of response. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the claimed deduction for interest paid on the home loan. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed before the effective date of the notification empowering the NFAC to pass such orders. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid and liable to be quashed.
The ITAT observed that the AR for the assessee was not in proper dress code. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication with an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not make proper submissions regarding property valuation before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the issue of property valuation was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Ground No. 3 was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(38) should be allowed if the conditions are met, even if the assessee initially agreed not to claim it. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision on similar facts.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed a recomputation of disallowances on travelling, conveyance, and sales promotion expenses to 10%, allowed an appeal regarding a difference in trade creditor balance as no transactions occurred in the year, and remanded an issue concerning a creditor balance difference for verification. The disallowance on freight and carriage expenses was confirmed.