Loading ITAT cases…
110 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that Section 269SS deals with loans or deposits, not the receipt of sale consideration in cash for immovable property. Therefore, the invocation of Section 269SS and the subsequent penalty under Section 271D were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative society from its investments in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The facts of the present case were distinguished from the Totgars' judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the revised monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite granting opportunities. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that while there was a delay and no affidavit was filed, in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves one opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require that one opportunity be given to the assessee to substantiate its case. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeals and cross-objections were not maintainable before the Nagpur Bench due to lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the reassessment proceedings and the addition of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's failure to appear and provide supporting evidence led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reversal of an excess provision, which was not allowed as a deduction in earlier years, does not constitute real income. Taxing this reversal would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that interest on NPA advances does not accrue to the assessee and therefore cannot be taxed. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments and the prudential norms of the Reserve Bank of India.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the reassessment proceedings and the addition of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's failure to appear and provide supporting evidence led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for de novo adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay with proper evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the reassessment proceedings and the addition of unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's failure to appear and provide supporting evidence led to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of the commission income should have been decided during the original assessment proceedings, not rectification. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the requested details and evidence promptly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for de novo adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to file an affidavit explaining the delay with proper evidence.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues denovo after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause due to the CIRP and the difficulty in gathering documents. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not issued in accordance with law as there was no tangible material linking the assessee's transactions to the information received from the search. The addition made under section 68 was also deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeal, in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves one opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that the 'initial assessment year' is the year the deduction is first claimed. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the transaction occurred on 19/04/2015, which was before the effective date of the prohibition (01/06/2015) for cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The ITAT, while acknowledging the delay and lack of proper explanation, set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with one opportunity to present their case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was liable to be quashed as the assessee had satisfied the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA and was not given an opportunity before rejection. Penalty is not leviable on debatable additions with bona fide explanations.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had considered all necessary details and documents submitted by the assessee before passing the assessment order. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of belated payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC is confirmed as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, interest charged under section 234C was directed to be recomputed based on the tax due on the returned income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the right to receive interest vests only on the due date as per the securities. The Tribunal noted that the method of accounting was not rejected and the income was consistently recognized.
The tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions, which the AO failed to disprove.
The tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without establishing its connection to the assessee or the investing companies. The AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and disregarded the evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one opportunity to substantiate its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments made with a co-operative bank is derived from its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments made with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is derived from its business activities. The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments made with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is derived from its business activities. The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars.
The Tribunal found that the assessee made out a prima facie case for being prevented by sufficient cause. For the sake of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment order under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked evidence of the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the discovery of incriminating material, quashing the entire assessment for both years.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments made with a co-operative bank is derived from its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the delay and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from its investments made with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is derived from its business activities. The facts were distinguished from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the CIRP. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without passing a speaking order, which is contrary to law.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one opportunity to substantiate its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment order under Section 153C was invalid as it lacked evidence of the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and the discovery of incriminating material, quashing the entire assessment for both years.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the delay and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit filed by the assessee regarding the delay and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.