Loading ITAT cases…
80 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that crucial facts necessary to verify the dispute were not on record, and the original records were with authorities in Kanpur, not Lucknow. Therefore, all impugned appellate orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, with a direction to pass an order after verifying relevant facts and providing reasonable opportunity to both sides.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) rejected the applications without providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to submit the requested details. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal observed that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) are not appealable before the Tribunal as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal advised the assessee to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal observed that orders passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) are not appealable before the Tribunal as per Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal advised the assessee to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) acted arbitrarily by rejecting the applications without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to explain its activities and rebut the conclusions drawn. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions without considering the available documents and facts, especially regarding opening balances and payments made to creditors. The AO's action of adding entire outstanding balances and amounts due from debtors was found to be illogical and hasty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of accumulation of income by filing Form-10 during reassessment proceedings, following the Delhi High Court's decision. For AY 2014-15, the issue of Section 13(2) and 13(3) was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even on assets whose cost has been deducted under Section 11, citing various High Court judgments. The reassessment proceedings were deemed academic as the exemption was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition under Section 68, relying on judicial precedents that sales cannot be suspected merely due to increased cash deposits during demonetization if books of account are accepted and no defects are found. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to add 20% as premium on sales, finding it to be based on conjecture without evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings, including the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2). Therefore, these grounds were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was bad in law as it amounted to substituting the AO's judgment. The Tribunal also noted that the revisionary proceedings were initiated while an appeal was pending before the CIT(A), which is barred by law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) acted arbitrarily by rejecting the applications without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to explain its activities and rebut the conclusions drawn. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted the peculiar facts and the difficulties faced by the assessee in presenting its case. It was decided that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, not the assessee's location. The Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. was relied upon, stating that even if cases are transferred, the original jurisdiction remains with the High Court of the AO's location.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, not the assessee's location. The Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. was relied upon, stating that even if cases are transferred, the original jurisdiction remains with the High Court of the AO's location.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's cash flow statement without adequate basis or convincing reason. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed a de novo order after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposit of Rs. 7,45,000/- was neither excessive nor unreasonable given the assessee's cancer awareness campaign. Recognizing the assessee as a charitable organization with no evidence to diminish its charitable nature, the Tribunal held the amount as explained and directed the Assessing Officer to allow it.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to make a case for action under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had recorded in the assessment order that explanations were called for on all points selected for scrutiny, and these were placed on record. The AO had also issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, to which the assessee responded with written submissions. The Tribunal found that while the PCIT acknowledged the assessee's submissions in his order, he failed to consider them and did not pass a speaking order explaining why they were not satisfactory. The Tribunal was satisfied that relevant inquiries were made by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT's order merely stated that the AO passed the assessment order without verifying and conducting further inquiries, without specifying what those further inquiries should have been. Since some inquiries were conducted and the AO took a considered view, it was not a case of no inquiry. Therefore, the impugned order of the PCIT was set aside, and the AO's assessment order dated December 14, 2019, was restored.
The Tribunal held that an assessment cannot be made against a deceased person as the definition of 'person' under Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act implies a living individual. Therefore, the assessment made on the deceased was illegal and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as agreed by both parties. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal noted that for the addition of Rs. 81,26,202/-, the assessee failed to provide details and the genuineness of credits was questionable. For the EPF contribution, there was a dispute regarding the correct figure of disallowance. Therefore, both issues were remanded.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as agreed by both parties. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was time-barred, having been passed beyond the statutory limitation period. It further found that the penalty notice issued by the AO did not disclose any specific charge and that the AO's additions were minor and ad-hoc. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the matter involved organized tax evasion. It found that the CIT(A) had not considered crucial SEBI orders which confirmed manipulation of the scrip's price. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a clear finding and had directed the Assessing Officer to verify certain claims. The Tribunal found that the revision of demand by the CIT(A) was also stated to be incorrect, and no rectification order was produced. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision by speaking order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that a married woman is permitted to keep up to 500 grams of gold jewellery as 'Streedhan' without objection, as per CBDT Circular No. 347-E and Instruction No. 1916. Given that the jewellery weighed 516.50 grams, the minor excess of 16.50 grams was deemed insignificant. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the entire addition of Rs.15,95,965/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the cash deposits made in the bank account, despite numerous opportunities provided by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) had incorrectly applied Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The appeal was allowed and the order was set aside, with directions to pass a fresh order considering Section 10(23C)(vi) and the previous ITAT ruling.
The Tribunal held that entries in the cash book need to be disproved with reference to the unavailability of cash, not on perceived unnatural conduct of the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of the assessee's explanation with reference to the cash book entries and verification of their authenticity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, sourced from parents' savings due to their medical conditions and age, was satisfactory, considering the circumstances. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted.