Loading ITAT cases…
230 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the rejection order was unsustainable as it violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard before concluding the proceedings based on post-application information.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were likely out of 'on-money' received from the sale of a capital asset. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to provide any evidence to rebut this claim, applying the principle of preponderance of probability.
The Tribunal held that the diversion of interest-bearing funds to sister concerns without proper authorization or business exigency justified the disallowance of interest. However, the repairs and maintenance expenditure incurred on leased premises for business operations, without creating a capital asset, were allowed as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found an inconsistency in the Revenue's approach to valuing gold jewellery versus diamond jewellery. It held that the facts regarding the acquisition and explanation of diamond jewellery needed further detailed examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found an inconsistency in the Revenue's approach to valuing gold jewellery versus diamond jewellery. It held that the facts regarding the acquisition and explanation of diamond jewellery needed further detailed examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found an inconsistency in the Revenue's approach to valuing gold jewellery versus diamond jewellery. It held that the facts regarding the acquisition and explanation of diamond jewellery needed further detailed examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds invested in nationalized banks is attributable to the primary business activity of providing credit facilities. Therefore, such interest income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal found that the characterization of 'Vikas Nidhi' as a development fund was unclear and its attribution to the society's core business of providing credit facilities needed verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for detailed examination.
The Tribunal held that the failure to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, when requested, violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to collect further documents and inquire into the exact completion dates of various project amenities. The case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if it is not deposited before the due dates specified under the respective statutes, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not consider all the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the source of income was not disputed and the assessee had paid taxes on her income. The Tribunal emphasized that the demonetization scheme was aimed at black money, not at taxing explained income.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities erred by making an ad-hoc addition without proper justification or independent analysis of the assessee's detailed agricultural expenses. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision in the assessee's own case on identical facts.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC violated principles of natural justice by not granting an adjournment and disposing of the appeal exparte. Therefore, the order of the NFAC was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were not maintainable, and the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal condoned the delay and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E). This was based on the assessee's undertaking to furnish all required details and the observation that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to provide the information initially.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to collect further documents and inquire into the exact completion dates of various project amenities. The case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing at the first appellate level. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot exercise revision jurisdiction under Section 263 based on a proposal from another officer, but must act suo motu. Therefore, the revision jurisdiction exercised was invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, as amended to allow for levy of fees under Section 200A, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for periods prior to this date, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy such fees.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods before this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, with its procedural amendments to Section 200A, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying late fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an agreement during a survey are not sustainable without corroborating incriminating material. The matter was remitted to the AO to restrict additions to amounts supported by actual vouchers or verifiable costs from books of account.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Based on the settlement under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the levy of such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods before this date.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, along with the amendment to Section 200A empowering the Assessing Officer to levy such fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, levying fees for periods before this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that if the income from the entries found in the searched group's diary was declared by the searched person as their own income, then no addition should sustain in the assessee's hands. Otherwise, the additions would stand. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification.
The Tribunal held that if the income from the entries found in the searched group's diary was declared by the searched person as their own income, then no addition should sustain in the assessee's hands. Otherwise, the additions would stand. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.
The Tribunal held that if the income from the entries found in the searched group's diary was declared by the searched person as their own income, then no addition should sustain in the assessee's hands. Otherwise, the additions would stand. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-verification.