Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a proper explanation with supporting documents like his wife's ITR and affidavit. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of the return under Section 139(4C) disentitles the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab). However, the entire interest income cannot be taxed, and the assessee is entitled to a deduction of expenses incurred to earn such income.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the assessee to upload the old registration certificate and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh decision. The rejection was based on a technical ground which could be rectified.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and the approval for reassessment was obtained correctly. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order remanding the matter to the AO was not flawed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of double taxation due to the addition needed further examination. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to reconcile and substantiate the receipts claimed to have been already accounted for.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's period of judicial custody as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's period of judicial custody as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's period of judicial custody as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's period of judicial custody as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and remitted the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant credit for prepaid taxes as per the return and Form 26AS.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's period of judicial custody as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that repayment of a loan taken for charitable purposes may be considered application of income, but double exemption is impermissible. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to re-examine whether the loan was considered as income in the year it was taken and utilized for trust objects.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing reasonable cause and the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal then remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account and the estimation of net profit at 8% of gross receipts. It ruled that separate deductions for depreciation are not allowable when a reasonable net profit rate is applied, especially since the assessee failed to provide necessary particulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's period of judicial custody as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back. The assessee was given liberty to file an application for condonation of delay, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide it in accordance with law.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account and the estimation of net profit at 8% of gross receipts. It ruled that separate deductions for depreciation are not allowable when a reasonable net profit rate is applied, especially since the assessee failed to provide necessary particulars.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking, lacking proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-response to notices from both the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision, with directions for three effective opportunities of hearing for the assessee to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal found that notices were sent to a wrong email ID provided by the appellant, thus not served. The order was set aside as the appellant was not heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the substantive compliance by the assessee, including paying the tax and not contesting the assessment order, despite the procedural lapse of not filing Form 68. It was also noted that the AO did not specify under which limb of Section 270A(9) the penalty for misreporting was imposed.
The Tribunal noted that while the Special Excise Court released the cash to the assessee, the assessee failed to establish the source of the cash loans from three parties. However, considering the assessee is a trader and accepted advance from prospective buyers, the addition was restricted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,46,000/- made in AY 2020-21 was not justified as the jewellery was found from a locker operated on 26.08.2020, which falls in AY 2021-22. The Tribunal also dismissed several legal grounds raised by the assessee.
The ITAT noted that the DVO's report was received beyond the stipulated period. Considering the assessee's concession for a 50% estimated disallowance on the amount confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal confirmed 50% of that amount.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as filed against a recovery letter. However, it noted that if registration under Section 12AA is pending during assessment, exemption may be eligible. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to provide substantiating documents and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The ITAT noted that the DVO's report was received beyond the stipulated period. Considering the assessee's concession for a 50% estimated disallowance on the amount confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal confirmed 50% of that amount.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not make proper submissions regarding its exemption claims before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the applicability of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and frame the reassessment de novo.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to furnish supporting documents for the delay. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee took a term loan but also runs a small Kirana shop. Accepting the assessee's counsel's submission, the Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with proper documentation and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the cancellation of provisional registration and approval by the CIT(E) was done without granting a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee failed to produce the required documentary evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's request for another chance to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the cancellation of provisional registration and approval by the CIT(E) was done without granting a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that ESOP expenditure, representing employee compensation accrued over the vesting period, is an allowable business expense under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the land sold was indeed rural agricultural land, exempt from capital gains tax, as it was beyond the specified distance from municipal limits as per CBDT notifications. The Tribunal also dismissed the grounds related to speculative loss, finding no material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside and remanded for de novo assessment by the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty order would not survive at this stage.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee failed to produce the required documentary evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's request for another chance to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was provided with an inadequate opportunity to be heard by the PCIT, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh consideration with adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it upheld the deletion of certain additions made by the AO, finding them unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence or being based on presumptions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, leading to partial relief for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on seized materials. However, it found that some additions were made without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper verification, particularly those based on retracted statements or presumptive calculations.