Loading ITAT cases…
284 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that Section 271 encompasses Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was devoid of merit. The assessee had repaid the loan through banking channels and provided supporting documents, including the lender's financial statements and PAN. The Tribunal followed various High Court judgments which supported the assessee's claim, especially when the loan was repaid.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and consider all evidence, including that not produced before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order, which was not on merits, was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was applicable only to transactions carried out on or after April 1, 2017, and not for Assessment Year 2017-18. Therefore, the pre-amended rate of 30% should be applied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and, considering the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee before the lower authorities, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted to the AO for reassessment de novo, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 5,63,000/- was out of the assessee's past savings and therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal found no entry of the Rs. 2,80,800/- transaction in the assessee's or M/s Chaturbhuj Dilip Kumar's bank accounts, nor in the loan confirmation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documents indicating registration under Section 12A and a final approval date. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the revised Form 29B should have been considered for MAT computation and remanded the issue to the AO. Regarding the ESI contribution disallowance, the matter was also remanded to the AO for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal, considering the affidavit and judicial precedents on liberal interpretation of limitation, decided to set aside the lower authorities' orders. The appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the late filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural defect and not a ground to deny the substantive benefit of deduction. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments stating that procedural requirements should be construed liberally.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders and the assessee's request for an opportunity to present their case, remitted the appeal back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments that emphasize liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was remitted back for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 5,63,000/- was out of the assessee's past savings and therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 5,63,000/- was out of the assessee's past savings and therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was applicable only to transactions carried out on or after April 1, 2017, and not for Assessment Year 2017-18. Therefore, the pre-amended rate of 30% should be applied.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without passing an order on merits due to non-compliance. For the interests of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed by the Tribunal in a separate appeal, the basis for imposing the penalty no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that mere entering into a JDA and handing over possession for construction does not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, especially when no consideration was received in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, no LTCG arose in AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a bonafide resident of Sikkim, is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Act. The registered sale deeds submitted by the assessee sufficiently explained the consideration amount earned within the geographical limits of Sikkim.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be computed based on investments yielding exempt income, not the average of total investments. The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be computed based on investments yielding exempt income, not the average of total investments. The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's letter treating the original return as a response to the Section 148 notice constituted sufficient compliance. It was mandatory for the AO to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after this compliance, and failure to do so rendered the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal, following the Third Member's decision, held that the validity of an assessment order can be challenged in penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed as it emanated from an invalid assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided all necessary documentary evidence for the loans and their repayment. Citing various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable when all proofs were furnished and loans were repaid.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to produce directors and evidence. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to produce directors and evidence. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in revising the assessment regarding unsecured loans due to the Assessing Officer's failure to examine the credits. However, for rental income and construction expenses, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view, and thus the Pr. CIT's revision on these points was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the entire weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii), directing the AO to allow it in full. Regarding the expenses from other sources, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the claim based on evidence, partly allowing the ground.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claimed agricultural income and expenses. The assessee's inconsistent submissions and lack of corroborating documents were key factors.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.