Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to disallow the brokerage deduction due to lack of supporting evidence. The Wealth-tax return was not considered sufficient proof of payment.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings commence with the filing of the return, not the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). Therefore, the assessment proceedings were pending when registration was granted, making the assessee eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal based on the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessee had opted for and completed the formalities under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the source of the deposit. The wife's income from land sale was declared, and the funds were traced back through her father, satisfying the Tribunal of the deposit's genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The merits of the case were not considered.
The Tribunal found that the issues were not substantially adjudicated by the first appellate authority due to ex-parte orders. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for re-adjudication.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the issues were settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant evidence to support their claim of agricultural income.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee's representative to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that once the CIT(A) accepted the eligibility of deduction under Section 80P(2) on interest income, it should be allowed on the entire interest income, not just proportionately.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without considering an adjournment request due to a Bharat Bandh. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal in limine for want of presence. The CIT(A) was supposed to decide the appeal on merits even if the assessee was absent.
The Tribunal held that even after the amendment to Section 54F, the purchase of two adjacent flats for use as a single dwelling unit satisfies the condition of acquiring 'one residential house'. Therefore, exemption is allowable for both flats.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the sources of the deposits, including loans from known persons and agricultural income, were not adequately controverted by the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized a holistic approach to the facts.