Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT did not conduct any independent inquiry to demonstrate that the AO's conclusions were unsustainable in law or that further inquiries would have led to a different outcome.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made necessary inquiries and the assessee had provided comprehensive documentary evidence. The PCIT's conclusion of inadequate inquiry was not supported by any further investigation or substantive reasons, and thus the revisionary order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made relevant inquiries and received detailed responses from the assessee. The PCIT's revisionary order was based on suspicion without conducting further inquiry or pointing out substantive reasons. Therefore, the assessment orders were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot deem an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue without conducting independent inquiries or providing substantive reasons beyond mere suspicion. The AO had already examined the issue and accepted the assessee's explanation with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and examined documentary evidence regarding the transactions. The PCIT's conclusion of an erroneous assessment was based on suspicion rather than a lack of sustainable legal grounds, and therefore, the revisionary order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the payment was an advance against salary, not a loan, thus not taxable as deemed dividend. It also ruled that late filing fees for GST are statutory payments and deductible, and that interest expenses were for business purposes and not for personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the payment was an advance against salary, not a loan, thus not taxable as deemed dividend. It also ruled that late filing fees for GST are statutory payments and deductible, and that interest expenses were for business purposes and not for personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary authority cannot set aside an assessment order under Section 263 without conducting its own independent inquiry if it finds the AO's inquiry to be insufficient. The AO had examined the issue of credits from group entities and found them to be genuine based on documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition for notional interest was uncalled for as the advance was not made from interest-bearing borrowings. The AO made a notional addition without establishing any facts against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely by asserting that the AO could have taken a different view. The PCIT must establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law or that the AO's findings are not probable, which requires some minimal inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely by asserting that the AO could have taken a different view. The PCIT must establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law or that the AO's findings are not probable, which requires some minimal inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of developed plots was already taxed in the hands of the developer, thus taxing the assessee's share again would be double taxation. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found peculiar circumstances where cash was deposited into the seller's loan accounts, and considering judicial precedents, deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the payment was an advance against salary, not a loan, thus not taxable as deemed dividend. It also ruled that late filing fees for GST are statutory payments and deductible, and that interest expenses were for business purposes and not for personal withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made relevant inquiries and received detailed responses from the assessee. The PCIT's revisionary order was based on suspicion without conducting further inquiry or pointing out substantive reasons. Therefore, the assessment orders were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the sources of credits, including loans from his son, wife, and a refund from a builder, with supporting evidence. The remaining amount was from accumulated savings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's husband, a Non-Resident working in Dubai, had provided funds from his salary income deposited in bank accounts. The Tribunal was satisfied that the alleged investment was sourced from these bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to a reasonable cause and peculiar facts of the case, specifically the incorrect PAN. Therefore, the denial of deduction under Section 80P was incorrect as a technical issue should not override substantive rights.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the tax consultant's lapse. It found discrepancies in the AO's calculation of turnover and noted that the property valuation should have been referred to the DVO. The issues were restored to the AO for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, which mandates higher TDS for non-furnishing or invalid PAN, was not applicable. The assessee had furnished a PAN, and it was not proven to be invalid. The demand raised by CPC-TDS was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits made from operational or statutory funds, which are intrinsically connected to the business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The revenue failed to provide evidence that these funds were surplus and unconnected to the business.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits made from operational or statutory funds, which are intrinsically connected to the business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The revenue failed to provide evidence that these funds were surplus and unconnected to the business.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing reasonable cause and larger interest of justice. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments in cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, as cooperative banks are fundamentally cooperative societies. The Assessing Officer's denial of this deduction was reversed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities and an apparent mistake in penalty calculation. It restored the penalty issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in e-verification was a procedural lapse and should not disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit of the new tax regime. The CIT(A)'s order was reversed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the tax liability under Section 115BAC.
The Tribunal held that only the net profit from the contract business should be taxed, not the gross receipts. It estimated the net profit at 10% of the gross receipts, amounting to Rs. 71,560/-, and deleted the remaining addition.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to comply, levying penalty for the second default was not justified if she was unaware of the first notice. Therefore, the penalty for the first default was sustained.