Loading ITAT cases…
1,109 orders · Page 6 of 23
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar additions were deleted in the assessee's own case and in other identical cases by coordinate benches. The Revenue failed to distinguish the present case or provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, to consider the decisions relied upon by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in the purchases from an unverified source. Considering the low-margin nature of the business and similar precedents, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 2% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for two subcontractors based on remand report findings. For the remaining subcontractor, the addition was restricted to the profit element (5.41%) instead of the 12.5% sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not offer any suo moto disallowance and relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since the principal loan transactions were accepted in earlier years, the corresponding interest expenditure on that loan cannot be disallowed. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were against statutory provisions as they lacked the power to set aside penalty appeals to the AO. Therefore, the appeals were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). Since the substantive addition was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty levied on that addition had no basis and could not survive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the two flats acquired (F-1301 and F-1304) were adjoining and used as a single composite residential house. It was also held that the two existing flats (B-1403 and B-1404) were also adjoining and formed one composite dwelling, meaning the assessee did not own more than one residential house.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural lapse and not a reason to deny FTC. Following High Court decisions, the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to consider additional evidence furnished by the assessee, which was not available during the assessment and appeal stages, in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, which clarified the position on disallowance even without exempt income, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2017-18, the disallowance was not sustainable if no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The AO's own remand report confirmed that the assessee had substantiated the purchases with proper documentation and banking transactions, negating the initial allegation of bogus purchases.
The Tribunal observed that the appellate order was passed ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the principles of natural justice and the documents produced by the assessee, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source. This was because the bank was bound by the interim order of the Madras High Court, which restrained them from deducting tax during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that advance payments for job work should not be considered as turnover until the work is done and invoices are raised. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification and determination of appropriate profit margins for job work transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular 19/2023 condoned the delay in filing Form 10IC for AY 2021-22, provided certain conditions were met. The assessee had fulfilled these conditions, and the delay should be condoned.
The Tribunal held that once an appellate authority declines to condone delay, it cannot adjudicate the appeal on merits. However, since a subsequent appeal on the same assessment order was already sub-judice, the present appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to 12.5%, stating that only the profit element should be taxed. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of additions on account of liabilities and differences in sales was justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years where the issue was decided against the assessee. However, it directed that any favorable decision from the High Court or Supreme Court on the pending issue should be followed for the current year.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE(2) mandates that no deduction or set-off of any loss shall be allowed against income chargeable under Section 115BBE. The rectification under Section 154 was therefore valid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance, finding that the political party was involved in a tax evasion racket. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision with identical facts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were against statutory provisions as they lacked the power to set aside penalty appeals to the AO. Therefore, the appeals were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source because it was bound by the interim order of the Madras High Court. The subsequent settlement of the substantive issue by the Supreme Court does not alter the position during the period of the binding interim order.
The Tribunal held that a mere delay in filing Form 10, if filed before the completion of assessment, should not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 11(2). The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source because it was bound by the interim order of the Madras High Court. The subsequent settlement of the substantive issue by the Supreme Court does not alter the position during the period of the binding interim order.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case due to reasons beyond its control for non-compliance.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention regarding the tax effect. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect, rendering the assessee's cross-objection infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to verify the date of service of the penalty order and, if within limitation, adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the 80G application was rejected without adequate opportunity of hearing and without communicating the 12AB rejection order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities were not justified in making additions without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The claim that the income was offered under a different PAN needed examination. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities were not justified in making additions without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The claim that the income was offered under a different PAN needed examination. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon and to be provided with the adverse material. The deduction under Section 80TTA was directed to be verified by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) mechanically rejected the application without applying his mind to the materials on record. The allegation of non-furnishing of the original registration certificate was unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from previous years, which was not controverted by the AO. Therefore, the addition under Section 69A was not justified as the source of the deposit was established.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, upon which the penalties were based, was set aside by a previous ITAT order, the penalties could not survive. The penalties were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, upon which the penalties were based, was set aside by a previous ITAT order, the penalties could not survive. The penalties were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance rather than an examination of the trust's charitable objects or genuineness of activities. It was decided that a further opportunity should be granted to the assessee to rectify the deficiencies.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not verified the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the documents and providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance rather than an examination of the trust's charitable objects or genuineness of activities. It was decided that a further opportunity should be granted to the assessee to rectify the deficiencies.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) was not justified in attaching a caveat to the registration, stating it would be subject to the outcome of a potential Supreme Court challenge. Such observations are legally unsustainable and create uncertainty.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations, ledger copies, bank statements, and financial statements of the lender. The Assessing Officer failed to point out any discrepancies or controvert the evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Both the disallowance of export incentive write-off and the addition under Section 68 were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The tribunal found that the seized material and statements from the search operation constituted unimpeachable evidence of the assessee's involvement in the transactions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have manually filed a detailed reply with supporting documents before the due date, which was not considered by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on loose papers and internal compilations, which were not substantiated by independent incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted procedural infirmities like lack of proper approval under Section 153D and denial of cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that since the denial of Section 12AB registration was the sole basis for rejecting the Section 80G approval, and that basis no longer exists, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.