Loading ITAT cases…
129 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed carrying on the 'coco-pani' business, as evidenced by various documents and a supplier's statement. However, since no regular books of account were maintained, the income was computed at 8% of the gross receipts.
The Tribunal found that the orders were passed ex parte without adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following precedent from its own bench and the Karnataka High Court, allowed the deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from banks. For the second appeal, one issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds exceeding its investments, the disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted. However, the disallowance computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was set aside for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in contravention of the CBDT Circular and was therefore deemed to be withdrawn or not pressed. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal found that the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were ex-parte. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper hearing. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(9) does not mandate reducing the profits allowed as deduction under 80IB from the eligible profits for calculating deduction under 80HHC. It also held that if the primary reason for reopening is invalid, no other additions can be made.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2010-11, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held invalid due to improper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. For AY 2012-13, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was restricted to the provision actually made in the books of account.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2010-11, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held invalid due to improper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. For AY 2012-13, the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was restricted to the provision actually made in the books of account.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee, due to the smallness of the issue, chose not to press the ground of appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the assessee's absence satisfactory and concluded that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claim that the amount was taxed in the previous year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of the gifts, as most donors were produced and accepted the gifts. The Tribunal also found that the sale of the plot of land was reflected in the assessee's P&L account and the AO could not reject this explanation without valid reason.
The Tribunal held that since the firm was continuing its business and incurring other expenses, it could not be presumed that the business was run without the involvement of working partners. The remuneration paid was within the ceiling prescribed under Section 40(b) and had been offered for taxation by the partners.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to make a fresh assessment after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to make a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that TACO was no longer a person covered under Section 40A(2)(b) after moving out of the joint venture. Therefore, the disallowance made by the authorities below was unwarranted.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The assessee failed to controvert the material considered by the authorities below.
The Tribunal held that no rental income can be computed when flats are held as stock-in-trade. Following a precedent, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, with a clear warning of adverse inference if the assessee fails to appear.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, with a clear warning of adverse inference if the assessee fails to appear.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 36 lakhs as unexplained cash credit. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity and capacity of the creditor, and the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, with a clear warning of adverse inference if the assessee fails to appear.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding them to be purely legal and going to the root of the matter. The case was remitted to the CIT(A) for adjudication of these legal issues.