Loading ITAT cases…
30 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB(1A) cannot be imposed unless the income qualifies as 'undisclosed income'. Since the profit was earned during the current assessment year and taxed as regular business income, it did not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition. The valuation by the District Valuation Officer was based on circle rates, which are not necessarily the fair market value. The Tribunal also noted the property was disputed and occupied by tenants, affecting its true market value.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case with evidence. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with law and restored the assessment order. It found that the assessee's claim of revenue neutrality was incorrect and that an assessee cannot benefit from underreporting income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB(1A) cannot be imposed unless the income qualifies as 'undisclosed income'. Since the profit was earned during the current assessment year and taxed as regular business income, it did not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB(1A) cannot be imposed unless the income qualifies as 'undisclosed income'. Since the profit was earned during the current assessment year and taxed as regular business income, it did not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB(1A) cannot be imposed unless the income qualifies as 'undisclosed income'. Since the profit was earned during the current assessment year and taxed as regular business income, it did not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB(1A) cannot be imposed unless the income qualifies as 'undisclosed income'. Since the profit was earned during the current assessment year and taxed as regular business income, it did not constitute undisclosed income.
The Tribunal found the AO's stand contradictory and the addition excessive. The CIT(A) should have called for a report from the AO before summarily dismissing the appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee and calling for necessary verification.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a clerical error and a genuine oversight, constituting 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) ought to have considered this and condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that mere cash payments and self-made vouchers are insufficient grounds for disallowance without an analysis of expenses in relation to the assessee's business scale. The disallowance was deemed arbitrary and without basis.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have summarily dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, especially when the issue of testing fees had been decided favorably in a previous assessment year. The ad-hoc disallowance was also deemed to be without basis.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under section 133A have no evidentiary value, especially when not recorded from a partner. The addition was based solely on the 'voluntary surrender' which was not supported by any discrepancy between the cash found and the books of accounts. The books of accounts were not rejected by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view regarding the cash deposits and TDS refunds. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was without jurisdiction as the AO's order was not erroneous. The impugned order of the PCIT was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was issued on a wrong charge (failure to get accounts audited) and the penalty was levied on a different charge (failure to furnish the report on time). This discrepancy, along with the fact that the audit was completed before the due date, invalidated the penalty.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting that proper fact-finding was not done at the lower levels. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, with directions to provide reasons for reassessment and consider the assessee's submissions and new evidence.
The ITAT held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable as it failed to consider the assessee's reply to the notices issued. This violation of natural justice led the Tribunal to set aside the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of donations as anonymous. The assessee had provided details of donors, and the AO should have verified the genuineness of donations before treating them as anonymous.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and did not present any material to explain the delay before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and allowed the same. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the return was filed within the extended due date granted by the CBDT. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 80AC was incorrect, and the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to provide necessary documents and information to prove the genuineness of its activities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory duty to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, even if the assessee fails to appear or comply. Dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits was erroneous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, upon noticing that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's claim under Section 10(26AAB) in compliance with the CIT(A)'s order. Both parties agreed that the appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer as mandated by law when the assessee claimed that the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value. Therefore, the additions made were unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order regarding 80G approval and restored it to the CIT(Exemptions) for a de novo decision. This was done to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, given the subsequent developments in the 12AA registration case.
The Tribunal held that in completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible if no incriminating material was found during the search. This decision was based on Supreme Court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell and U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that in completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible if no incriminating material was found during the search. This decision was based on Supreme Court judgments in Abhisar Buildwell and U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd.