Loading ITAT cases…
553 orders · Page 4 of 12
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from investments in cooperative banks, relying on Supreme Court decisions. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the interest income.
The Tribunal held that the trust is a revocable trust and the income arising from it is not taxable in the hands of the trust but in the hands of the Security Receipt Holders. The assessee cannot be assessed as an Association of Persons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and partly allowed the quantum appeals, directing fresh adjudication on amortization. The penalty appeal was allowed as the basis for the penalty no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s attempt to rectify the order under Section 154 to include a fresh jurisdictional direction was an impermissible review of a concluded appellate decision and was ultra vires. The rectification order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the jurisdictional High Court had quashed the notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings, the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Therefore, the additions made in the assessment order were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the jurisdictional High Court had set aside the notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings, the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Therefore, the additions made in the reassessment order were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for a marginal delay was hyper-technical and defeated the assessee's statutory right of appeal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the jurisdictional High Court had set aside the notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings, the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Therefore, the additions made in the reassessment order were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition of 12.5% on bogus purchases was justified, citing judicial precedents. The CIT(A)'s reduction to 3% was considered unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were issued beyond the period of limitation, considering the extensions and the 'stop-the-clock' mechanism. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the transactions were not genuine loans and involved accommodation entries, the assessee, acting as a conduit, was not the ultimate beneficiary of the entire sum. The tax liability should be limited to the benefit derived by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was made solely on the basis of third-party statements without corroborative material and without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed with an inordinate delay. However, considering the reasons provided in the affidavit, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the delay condonation petition with a lenient approach.
The Tribunal held that while the non-compliance was not a legally tenable excuse, procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights. Therefore, the assessee was granted one final opportunity to furnish the required details, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the DVO did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the assessee's objections to the draft valuation report were properly considered and disposed of. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO/DVO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. While the provision for indigent patients was not allowed as an application of income, actual reimbursements made to such patients were allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the transactions were not genuine loans and involved accommodation entries, the assessee, acting as a conduit, was not the ultimate beneficiary of the entire sum. The tax liability should be limited to the benefit derived by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material, making the reopening bad in law. Furthermore, the notice under Section 148 was issued to a non-existent entity after the assessee company had merged with another entity.
The Tribunal held that the original assessment order, upon which the impugned appellate order was based, had ceased to have legal existence due to the subsequent reassessment. Therefore, the appeal arising from the earlier order was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the facts regarding the property booking, mode of payment, and the assessee's actual share. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted comprehensive details, including confirmations, ledger accounts, bank statements, and ITRs, to the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal held that these authorities failed to consider the provided evidence and mechanically sustained the addition.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. While the provision for indigent patients was not allowed as an application of income, actual reimbursements made to such patients were allowed.
The Tribunal held that price quotations from Sunvin Group and MMSPL can be used for benchmarking under the CUP method, citing various judicial precedents. Consequently, the transfer pricing addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the director's serious medical condition as a reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to ensure substantial justice.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to refund the balance TDS of Rs. 7,06,909/- after verifying that the assessee had offered the corresponding income to tax and had not claimed credit in subsequent years. The plea for carry forward of TDS was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical condition. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the condonation petition with a lenient view.
The Tribunal held that the earlier transaction could not be considered a continuation and rejected the assessee's claim to use the 2008 valuation. However, it allowed the assessee's alternative plea to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation as of the 2017 agreement date.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and partly allowed the quantum appeals, directing fresh adjudication on amortization. The penalty appeal was allowed as the basis for the penalty no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s attempt to rectify the order under Section 154 to include a fresh jurisdictional direction was an impermissible review of a concluded appellate decision and was ultra vires. The rectification order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided without effective participation of the assessee and that principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s attempt to rectify the order under Section 154 to include a fresh jurisdictional direction was an impermissible review of a concluded appellate decision and was ultra vires. The rectification order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers merely because their opinion differs from the AO's, especially when the AO had already considered the issues based on detailed notices and assessee's elaborate replies. The PCIT's direction to make additions was found to be beyond the scope of Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability or dissolution clause cannot be the sole ground for rejecting an application for registration under section 12AB, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It further held that since the quantum assessment proceedings were restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty appeals should also be restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It further held that since the quantum assessment proceedings were restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty appeals should also be restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the calculation of interest under Section 244A, especially when a refund is adjusted against outstanding demand, is not a debatable issue. It is a matter of objective verification of records. The Tribunal found the CPC's computation lacked transparency.
The Tribunal found that the nature and character of the receipts comprising the surplus required proper verification by the Assessing Officer to determine the applicability of the doctrine of mutuality. The issue was therefore restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the nature and character of the receipts comprising the surplus required proper verification by the Assessing Officer to determine the applicability of the doctrine of mutuality. The issue was therefore restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and file supporting documents, including an affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. While the provision for indigent patients was not allowed as an application of income, actual reimbursements made to such patients were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and partly allowed the quantum appeals, directing fresh adjudication on amortization. The penalty appeal was allowed as the basis for the penalty no longer survived.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one final opportunity to present documentary evidence. This was to ensure substantial justice and an opportunity to be heard on merits, especially concerning factual evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and file supporting documents, including an affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s attempt to rectify the order under Section 154 to include a fresh jurisdictional direction was an impermissible review of a concluded appellate decision and was ultra vires. The rectification order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. While the provision for indigent patients was not allowed as an application of income, actual reimbursements made to such patients were allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the non-compliance was not a legally tenable excuse, procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights. Therefore, the assessee was granted one final opportunity to furnish the required details, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal permitted the Assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as it had become academic and infructuous due to the subsequent obtaining of registration.
The Tribunal held that the addition of cash deposits was not sustainable as the assessee provided detailed explanations and the revenue failed to controvert the evidence. However, the addition of agricultural income was restored to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and file supporting documents, including an affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s attempt to rectify the order under Section 154 to include a fresh jurisdictional direction was an impermissible review of a concluded appellate decision and was ultra vires. The rectification order was quashed.