Loading ITAT cases…
240 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting the similarity to a previous case, decided to restore the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's intention to amend the trust deed to include charitable objects. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to consider the amended trust deed and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for accommodation entries was not justified as the assessee was not the beneficiary. However, commission income on such entries could be added. The order of the CIT(A) was modified to estimate income at 0.15% of the share capital/premium.
The Tribunal held that since no actual funds were received and the transactions were merely book entries without any movement of money, Section 68 of the Income-tax Act was not attracted. The addition made by the AO was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the restriction of Rs. 50 lakh under Section 54EC applies per financial year, not to the transaction as a whole. Since the assessee invested Rs. 50 lakh in each of two financial years within the six-month period, the full deduction is admissible.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on an issue not directly related to the merits of the additions made by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the substantive issues.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed against a dead person, as the assessee had died before the order was passed and the department was aware of his death. Therefore, the order was a nullity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing Supreme Court judgments that advocate for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal decided to remit the present appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a consolidated order for both the pending appeal and the appeal being remitted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's submissions regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice and the merits of the case. For the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchases cannot be disallowed if the sales are accepted. Only the profit element embedded in the corresponding sales can be subjected to tax, and the assessee had already offered this profit for taxation.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the respondent had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee was given an opportunity to produce all documents to prove the genuineness of transactions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide satisfactory replies to the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to issue a show cause notice and consider the assessee's evidence before making a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, finding that while the source of cash was accepted, a portion of the credit card expenses included personal elements. A disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- was made on account of the personal element in travel, service charges, and entertainment expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on stock difference, finding no discrepancy. It also agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of interest expenses and deletion of disallowances for freight and repairs, considering the circumstances and evidence presented.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was ex-parte and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the professional fees were revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction. It also found that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 for unsecured loans by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including repayment, and relied on High Court judgments where similar appeals by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, delivery challans, bank statements, VAT returns, and stock registers, to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account or pointed out any discrepancies in quantitative records.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, delivery challans, bank statements, VAT returns, and stock registers, to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account or pointed out any discrepancies in quantitative records.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to recompute the taxable income by applying Rule 8(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, after making the disallowance for belated deposit of employee contributions to ESIC.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of participation and evidence. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to participate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the liberal interpretation of sufficient cause for delay. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim that shares were allotted to an NRI and to re-examine the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib).
The Tribunal found the ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses to be neither just nor reasonable, considering the nature of the business and the profit margins. Therefore, the disallowance was modified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had passed the impugned order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the PCIT for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not leviable as the assessee's claim was bona fide, supported by a prevailing High Court judgment at the time, and all material facts were disclosed. The subsequent reversal of the legal position by the Supreme Court did not retrospectively make the claim mala fide or constitute under-reporting.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits and the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not in a position to file all necessary evidence before the CIT(Appeals). To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 121 days, finding the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bona fide. The tribunal further remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal individually. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal, following its own order in a similar case for a prior assessment year, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to collect information from the bank regarding FDRs given as security.
The Tribunal held that delayed employee contributions to EPF/ESI are not deductible, upholding the disallowance. However, issues regarding Form 26AS additions and the delay in filing the second appeal were remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount suo motu disallowed by the assessee, and the issue related to Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance should be restricted to 30% of the expenses, treating the amendment as retrospective. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that delayed employee contributions to EPF/ESI are not deductible, upholding the disallowance. However, issues regarding Form 26AS additions and the delay in filing the second appeal were remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). This was to allow the assessee to submit a medical certificate for the delay and to provide an opportunity for a hearing on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case properly, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the entire differential receipts did not constitute income as expenses were incurred. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to apply a net profit rate of 45% to the gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure under Section 143(1) was not a prima facie adjustment. Even if exemption under Section 11 was not allowable, income should have been computed on commercial principles after considering the claimed expenses.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure under Section 143(1) was not a prima facie adjustment. Even if exemption under Section 11 was not allowable, income should have been computed on commercial principles after considering the claimed expenses.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire expenditure under Section 143(1) was not a prima facie adjustment. Even if exemption under Section 11 was not allowable, income should have been computed on commercial principles after considering the claimed expenses.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on labour expenditure and Section 10AA deduction, remanding these issues to the AO for fresh examination with additional evidence. Additions related to net cash flow and proprietor's capital were partly allowed, with directions for AO verification. Procedural grounds concerning scrutiny selection were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee needed an opportunity to provide necessary reconciliation and evidence to support his claim of being a commission agent. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the renewal application without cancelling the subsisting registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a valid registration for AY 2022-23 to 2026-27.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly assumed that Form 35 and other documents were not filed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found the share transaction to be dubious, creating an artificial loss to offset interest income, and that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the disallowed amount qualifies for deduction under Section 80-IC requires further factual examination. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The CIT(A) was directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate the issues on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.