Loading ITAT cases…
104 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted a reply which was not considered by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance for expenses lacking vouchers and remitted it to the AO for fresh examination. For notional rent, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the property was let out in prior years. Disallowances under Rule 8D were also remitted for re-computation.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance for expenses lacking vouchers and remitted it to the AO for fresh examination. For notional rent, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the property was let out in prior years. Disallowances under Rule 8D were also remitted for re-computation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted a reply which was not considered by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It upheld the disallowance of written-off investments and loans due to lack of substantiated business expediency. The issue of research expenses was remanded to the AO for verification.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without proper consideration of the assessee's case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding both the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the addition of unaccounted income from share sale. The assessee failed to provide evidence to counter the revenue's claim.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of not receiving notices and the Revenue's no objection to a remand. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) granted relief without proper verification of evidence and that the AO did not have an opportunity to examine the alleged evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC could not definitively deny the deduction without proper details of the residential units. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, as they relied on the bonafide opinion of their Chartered Accountant. The penalty was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that disallowances related to business activity result in enhanced profits eligible for Chapter VI-A deduction, citing CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 and judicial precedents. The lower authorities erred in denying this deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and require clear satisfaction of the Assessing Officer (AO) on specific charges. A notice for concealment of income cannot lead to a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent, set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to await the CIT(E)'s decision on the retrospective grant of registration. The outcome of the registration will impact the merits of the exemption claim.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's dismissal for non-prosecution suffered from procedural defects as it failed to state the points for determination and the reasons for its decision. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly represented and had not filed evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the NFAC for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit evidence.
The Tribunal held that remuneration to a partner is not salary and that non-audit of books does not automatically warrant invoking presumptive taxation. The revenue authorities erred in treating partner remuneration as salary and disallowing set-off of professional loss.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to properly apportion expenses between its trading and manufacturing segments. It also found that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was not appropriate for benchmarking the sale of finished goods due to significant quantitative differences in transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention or lack of bonafideness. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, holding that the levy of fees under Section 234E was questionable prior to June 1, 2015. The matter was remanded to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention or lack of bonafideness. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention or lack of bonafideness. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention or lack of bonafideness. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention or lack of bonafideness. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention or lack of bonafideness. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention or lack of bonafideness. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for a final opportunity due to a bona fide lapse by their tax consultant and the Revenue's no objection, decided to remand the issue of foreign exchange loss to the AO. Similarly, the issue of depreciation was also remanded for consistency with previous orders.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for a final opportunity due to a bona fide lapse by their tax consultant and the Revenue's no objection, decided to remand the issue of foreign exchange loss to the AO. Similarly, the issue of depreciation was also remanded for consistency with previous orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings were not conducted according to established legal principles, with the AO and CIT(A) failing to provide sustainable reasons for their decisions. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings were not conducted according to established legal principles, with the AO and CIT(A) failing to provide sustainable reasons for their decisions. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found no evidence to support the CIT(A)'s relief and noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with directions to consider evidence and assist the assessee.
The Tribunal held that if exemption is denied, the assessment should be a normal assessment where only total income is taxed, not gross receipts. The CIT(A)'s direction to tax total income was therefore upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), confirming the addition made by the AO. This was due to the assessee's consistent non-appearance and failure to provide any submissions or evidence to support their claim.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not make any addition regarding the advances to other trusts, the issue did not require adjudication. Therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that capitalizing interest to the cost of debentures was permissible as it formed part of the investment. Regarding partner remuneration, it was a debatable issue with conflicting High Court views, and the AO followed a view favorable to the assessee, which could not be revised under section 263.
The Tribunal held that the order of the NFAC was not a reasoned order and could not be sustained. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the land was agricultural, and the Assessing Officer's findings were not controverted.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order suffered from a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. The matter was set aside and remanded for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for properties where the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value was less than 10%, no addition could be made under Section 43CA. The addition for these specific properties was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order suffered from a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. The matter was set aside and remanded for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were void ab initio, constituting a sham and a fraudulent device to bring undisclosed income into account. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of fraud, stating it vitiates all transactions and renders them nullities.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were void ab initio, constituting a sham and a fraudulent device to bring undisclosed income into account. The Tribunal applied the doctrine of fraud, stating it vitiates all transactions and renders them nullities.
The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd.' regarding disallowance for delayed remittances. However, since the assessee claimed incorrect details in the tax audit report and did not provide supporting evidence like payment challans, the issue was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO's jurisdiction was limited to verifying deductions under Section 57. The PCIT could not expand the scope of assessment in revisionary proceedings for issues outside the original limited scrutiny. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the exemption under sections 11 and 12 was rightly denied due to non-compliance with the audit report requirement, the income should be computed by allowing allowable expenditure against gross receipts, not by taxing the entire gross receipts. The matter was remanded for proper computation of taxable income.
The Tribunal held that since the subject matter of the appeal was already adjudicated and the assessee had filed for withdrawal, the present appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted the lack of proper representation and evidence from the assessee before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's direction to tax the amount under a different section was beyond its powers as per Section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The NFAC's order lacked proper compliance with Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that since the return was filed belatedly and did not initially claim the deduction, the assessee was not eligible for the 80P deduction as per Section 80AC(ii) of the Act. The processing under Section 143(1) was also deemed correct.