Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the share of profit from a partnership firm is specifically exempt under Section 10(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided the partnership deed and the firm's ITR to the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) as they provided documentary evidence and the additions were based on third-party statements without cross-examination. The estimated commission addition was also deleted as it was made on presumptions.
The Tribunal held that the AO is bound to dispose of the assessee's objections against reassessment proceedings by a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. Failure to do so renders the assessment order unsustainable.
The assessee, through their counsel, sought permission to withdraw the appeal as they were no longer willing to pursue it. The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeal. However, due to the assessee's successful settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds advanced by the government for construction projects, deposited in banks, was to be remitted to the government as per government orders. It also found that the bad debt claim related to service tax was valid due to an objection by the CAG, and the profit recognition method was consistent with prior tribunal rulings. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal found a discrepancy regarding the production of books of account and vouchers. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO is bound to dispose of the assessee's objections against reassessment proceedings by a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. Failure to do so renders the assessment order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c) must specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) to comply with natural justice. Failure to do so renders the notice void ab initio and the subsequent penalty illegal.
The Tribunal held that the rectification under Section 154 was not justified as the original disallowance was based on non-deduction of TDS, not on the genuineness of the expenditure. Therefore, disallowing depreciation as a 'mistake apparent from record' was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for both retention reserve and interest income. It found that the assessee's accounting method for retention reserve was consistent with AS-7 and accepted by auditors and CAG. The interest income on unutilized government funds was correctly treated as government income as per government orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in processing the return under section 143(1) by treating entire gross receipts as assessed income without allowing deductions. The order of the CIT(A) cancelling this erroneous order was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds advanced by the government for construction projects, deposited in banks, was to be remitted to the government as per government orders. It also found that the bad debt claim related to service tax was valid due to an objection by the CAG, and the profit recognition method was consistent with prior tribunal rulings. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds advanced by the government for construction projects, deposited in banks, was to be remitted to the government as per government orders. It also found that the bad debt claim related to service tax was valid due to an objection by the CAG, and the profit recognition method was consistent with prior tribunal rulings. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was not granted in accordance with the law due to its mechanical nature and lack of application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid approval was annulled.