Loading ITAT cases…
986 orders · Page 13 of 20
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were vitiated due to a defect in the statutory notice. The Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were largely based on assumptions and inferences unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations furnished by the assessee were substantially supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 138 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation, supported by an affidavit, to be bona fide and reasonable, citing her serious spinal injury, prolonged treatment, physical incapacity, lack of awareness of reassessment proceedings due to non-registration on the income tax portal, and her husband's critical medical condition. The Tribunal considered these circumstances as preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed period and that the delay was not due to deliberate negligence. The Tribunal further decided to adjudicate the issue on merits itself, rather than remitting it, as all relevant evidence was available. The Tribunal found that the addition of ₹2,10,75,000/- under section 69A could not be sustained. It was established by documentary evidence, including bank statements, payment details, Form 26AS, and the return of income of the assessee's husband, Shri Rustom Irani, that the entire purchase consideration was paid by him from his disclosed sources, through banking channels and a housing loan. The Tribunal noted that the AO had completed the assessment ex parte, and these explanations were not before him. However, since the source of investment was fully explained in the hands of the husband, the deeming fiction under section 69A could not be invoked against the assessee, even as a joint owner, without any material suggesting her contribution from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on conjectures and presumptions, as crucial evidence was not provided to the assessee and cross-examination was not possible. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence to disprove the assessee's contentions.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared interest income in the 'Income from other sources' schedule and that the allowability of Section 80P(2)(d) for interest from cooperative banks is well-established. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction after factual verification.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the subsequent grant of registration.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were largely based on assumptions and inferences unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations furnished by the assessee were substantially supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were largely based on assumptions and inferences unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations furnished by the assessee were substantially supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's additions were largely based on assumptions and inferential conclusions unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations furnished by the assessee were substantially supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate, and the CIT(A) was asked to dispose of the appeals expeditiously.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were largely based on assumptions and inferences unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations furnished by the assessee were substantially supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the ex parte order was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay should have been condoned and that the assessee is entitled to full TDS credit. This is because the employer deducted TDS but did not remit it to the revenue, and the assessee provided supporting documents.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the case back for fresh consideration. This was based on the assessee's action of amending the objectionable clause, thereby addressing the CIT's concern.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to follow the prescribed procedures and provide reasonable opportunities for hearing, ensuring a speaking order with specific findings.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were largely based on assumptions and inferences unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations furnished by the assessee were substantially supported by documentary evidence.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to specify the exact deficiencies or examine the submitted documents and submissions. The rejection order was not supported by adequate analysis and lacked adherence to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because the quantum addition was based on mere estimation and the show-cause notice and penalty order lacked specific charges for under-reporting or misreporting of income as required by Section 270A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Both the addition related to the property purchase and the addition for cash deposits were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to the need for fresh factual verification and the admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the turnover for audit purposes, especially for derivatives, should be calculated as per ICAI guidelines, and investment transactions in shares should not be added to business turnover. Since these aspects were not considered by the lower authorities, the matter was restored.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the case back for fresh consideration. This was based on the assessee's action of amending the objectionable clause, thereby addressing the CIT's concern.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were largely based on assumptions and inferences unsupported by cogent evidence. The explanations furnished by the assessee were substantially supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoned the delay, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case and deposit Rs. 10,000/- to the PM Cares fund.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus by providing purchase and sale contract notes, bank statements, and proof of STT payment. The revenue failed to provide evidence to refute the assessee's claim, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed a rectification application with the CPC, clarifying the FTC amount. The CPC subsequently allowed the claim, rendering the assessee's grievance resolved.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were vitiated due to a defect in the statutory notice. The Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10BB, citing previous judgments that adopted a justice-oriented approach. The Assessing Officer was directed to treat the form as valid and adjudicate the exemption claim on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, citing medical records and the existence of similar evidence filed previously. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to a divergence in the information used to initiate the proceedings and the subsequent findings. The Tribunal also noted that the loan transaction had already been accepted as genuine in the original assessment.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, both appeals, including the delayed ones, were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Given the specific request and the delay, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence was presented which required factual verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to rebate under Section 87A even if part of the income comprises short-term capital gains chargeable under Section 111A, as there was no express statutory prohibition for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10BB, citing previous judgments that adopted a justice-oriented approach. The Assessing Officer was directed to treat the form as valid and adjudicate the exemption claim on merits.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte and the assessee sought an opportunity to present their case. In the interest of natural justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to pass a speaking and reasoned order and adjudicate issues on merits. Since the impugned order lacked findings on the substantive grounds raised by the assessee, it was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting that proper representation was not made by the assessee, set aside the addition. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature and source of the credits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing relevant documents and details. The Assessing Officer failed to bring on record material to dispute the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest received by the head office/overseas branches is not taxable in India as it is an inter-se transaction between different establishments of the same legal entity. Losses on revaluation of foreign exchange contracts and securities held as stock-in-trade were allowed as deductions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income and deleting the addition to book profit under Section 115JB, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the provision for VSI contribution, even if not actually paid, is allowable under Section 35(1)(ii) for assessees following the mercantile system of accounting, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18 were dismissed on territorial jurisdiction grounds.
The Tribunal held that the intimation was not barred by limitation as the date mentioned therein was to be accepted. Regarding the exemption claims, the Tribunal found no justification for disallowing the statutory 15% accumulation under section 11(1)(a) and held that filing Form 10 before the CIT(A) constituted substantial compliance for section 11(2).
The Tribunal held that the provision for VSI contribution, even if not actually paid, is allowable under Section 35(1)(ii) for assessees following the mercantile system of accounting, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18 were dismissed on territorial jurisdiction grounds.
The Tribunal held that interest received by the head office/overseas branches from the Indian branch is not taxable in India as it pertains to inter-se transactions of the same legal entity and does not meet the conditions of Section 9(1)(v)(c). Losses on revaluation of foreign exchange contracts and securities held as stock-in-trade were allowed as deductions.