Loading ITAT cases…
87 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was found that the bank account in question belonged to the partnership firm, and the assessee's PAN was erroneously mapped to it. Evidence indicated the cash deposits were within the firm's turnover and accounted for in its audited books.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without any tangible material, constituting a mere 'change of opinion', which is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest disallowance needed to be re-decided by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to plead and prove all relevant facts regarding its fund position of interest-free versus non-interest-bearing funds.
The Tribunal found that both lower authorities added the difference because the assessee failed to produce evidence that the receipts were advances to be taxed later. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) of the IT Rules does not mandate disallowance for delayed filing of Form 67, and that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal also noted that the Madras High Court in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT has held Rule 128 to be directory.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the DVO's valuation did not consider all relevant factors. In the interest of justice, the addition was reduced to Rs. 12 lakhs, providing relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid as Section 153C provides a specific mechanism for assessing income based on material found during a search belonging to a third party. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the differential amount was within the statutory tolerance margin of 10% as per the third proviso to Section 50C(1), which was held to have retrospective effect. Therefore, the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had made a double addition of insurance commission income. To rectify this, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer/CPC for a fresh computation.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the conversion of the trust into a company. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal as per law.
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission and, in the absence of any objection from the revenue, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding undisclosed business receipts, reducing the addition to 10.04% of the undisclosed amount. For the excess GST turnover, the Tribunal found the addition unjustified and allowed the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for verification of the actual bonus payment. The taxpayer has the onus to prove all relevant facts.
The Tribunal held that the condition of applying income for charitable purposes in India is mandatory. The assessee failed to satisfy this condition with its foreign travel expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iv) was unjustified. It was found that losses from earlier years should be considered when computing the deduction and that the interpretation of 'initial assessment year' by the CIT(A) was incorrect, contrary to a Supreme Court judgment and a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the principle of natural justice. However, due to apparent discrepancies in financial statements and lack of clear evidence, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not decide the assessee's substantive grounds on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's socio-economic status and the relief already granted, decided to make a lump sum addition of Rs. 1.25 lakhs out of the Rs. 1,95,000/-. This provides the assessee with a relief of Rs. 65,000/-.
The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide at least three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal held that Section 143(1)(a)(iv) is applicable only for disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not accounted for in the return. Since the Revenue failed to point out any such indication in the audit report, the disallowance was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) by the Finance Act, 2021, which disallowed Section 80P deduction for delayed filing, had prospective operation only. Therefore, the rejection of the assessee's claim for the assessment year 2018-2019 was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, following principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require giving the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E for belatedly filed TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act at that time. This decision followed previous judgments from the Tribunal and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act at that time. This decision followed previous rulings by coordinate benches and High Courts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived from SLR funds maintained by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank and CIT vs. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite providing opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite giving opportunities. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act at that time. This decision followed previous rulings by coordinate benches and High Courts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, following principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case with additional evidence due to a strained relationship with their Chartered Accountant.