Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 2 of 3
The ITAT held that due to the ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding which assessment order was relied upon by the CIT(A), the matter needed to be re-examined. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the case was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of MPS Ltd. and Domex E-Data Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables, following its own previous orders. The appeal regarding CES Ltd. was not fully adjudicated in the provided text.
The Tribunal held that the deposit of employees' share of PF and ESIC must be made before the due date stipulated under the respective Acts for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va). The due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is irrelevant for this purpose.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' failure to provide necessary documents but, considering the welfare nature of the Income Tax Act and the Directive Principles of State Policy, decided to grant them one more opportunity. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawn from a bank account is presumed to be available for subsequent deposit, especially when the withdrawal and deposit occurred within a short period. The Tribunal also found that the explanation regarding cash borrowed from the brother was supported by evidence and an affidavit.
The Tribunal noted that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and granted the assessee one more opportunity to rectify defects. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte adjudication, while necessitated by the assessee's non-compliance and absence of cogent evidential material and submissions, was not in consonance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that section 251(1)(a) restricts the CIT(A)'s power to confirming, annulling, reducing, or enhancing additions without remanding, but it still requires the CIT(A) to state points of determination, decisions, and clear reasons. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions in line with the assessment order without adjudicating the matter as required by section 250(6). Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the ITAT deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide not more than three opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6).
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(E)'s order, remitting the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee is to be given a final opportunity to submit relevant details and present their case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the matter in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires a speaking order with points of determination and reasons. Therefore, the matter was remanded back.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the matter in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires a speaking order with points of determination and reasons. Therefore, the matter was remanded back.
The Tribunal held that more verification of facts was required regarding the assessee's activities and the loan transaction. It set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that more verification of facts was required regarding the assessee's activities and the loan transaction. It set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte adjudication, while necessitated by the assessee's non-compliance and absence of cogent evidential material and submissions, was not in consonance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that section 251(1)(a) restricts the CIT(A)'s power to confirming, annulling, reducing, or enhancing additions without remanding, but it still requires the CIT(A) to state points of determination, decisions, and clear reasons. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions in line with the assessment order without adjudicating the matter as required by section 250(6). Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the ITAT deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide not more than three opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte adjudication, while necessitated by the assessee's non-compliance and absence of cogent evidential material and submissions, was not in consonance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that section 251(1)(a) restricts the CIT(A)'s power to confirming, annulling, reducing, or enhancing additions without remanding, but it still requires the CIT(A) to state points of determination, decisions, and clear reasons. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions in line with the assessment order without adjudicating the matter as required by section 250(6). Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the ITAT deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide not more than three opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte adjudication, while necessitated by the assessee's non-compliance and absence of cogent evidential material and submissions, was not in consonance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that section 251(1)(a) restricts the CIT(A)'s power to confirming, annulling, reducing, or enhancing additions without remanding, but it still requires the CIT(A) to state points of determination, decisions, and clear reasons. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions in line with the assessment order without adjudicating the matter as required by section 250(6). Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the ITAT deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide not more than three opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm additions related to on-money receipts and unaccounted advances, finding the assessee's submissions lacked evidence. However, certain additions made by the AO were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments were made on bank holidays and the seller insisted on cash due to urgent need, which falls under an exception to Section 40A(3). Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the difference was due to GST inclusion by suppliers and differences in opening balances, which were not fully substantiated before the lower authorities. The matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm additions related to on-money receipts and unaccounted advances, finding the assessee's submissions lacked evidence. However, certain additions made by the AO were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the impugned order due to both assessment and appellate orders being passed ex parte. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as no proper verification was done regarding the claimed business loss. The Pr. CIT's order was upheld, and the assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that Income Tax laws are welfare legislation and that the assessee deserves another opportunity. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had not properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, especially those concerning the validity of the reassessment. Therefore, the NFAC's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the newly substituted Rule 128(9) allows for the filing of Form No. 67 by the end of the assessment year, and the return can be filed under section 139(1) or 139(4). However, it was not definitively proven that the required certificate under Rule 128(8)(ii) was also furnished.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm additions related to on-money receipts and unaccounted advances, finding the assessee's submissions lacked evidence. However, certain additions made by the AO were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm additions related to on-money receipts and unaccounted advances, finding the assessee's submissions lacked evidence. However, certain additions made by the AO were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a deduction for the cost of acquisition of the land, but only to the extent of 1/3rd of the first purchase agreement's value and associated expenses. It also held that the profit from the agreement to sell the second parcel of land was not taxable in the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the Rs. 1 crore was not reflected as a loan in the assessee's balance sheet and was part of his capital account. The Tribunal also declined to entertain additional grounds as the necessary facts were not on record.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the assessee's reasons for non-compliance as genuine. The order of the NFAC was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, lacking a DIN, was invalid and deemed to have never been issued, following the Bombay High Court's decision. Consequently, all other grounds raised by the assessee became academic.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order and remitted the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing and liberty to lead fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and not penal. In the interest of justice, one final opportunity should be provided to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal decided both grounds. For the first ground concerning common amenity expenses, the Tribunal noted the substantial increase in cost sharing payments to GDPL in AY 2012-13 compared to previous years, without a clear basis for allocation provided by the assessee. The AO had disallowed a portion of these expenses, deeming them unreasonable and applied a 42.30% ratio to the disallowed amount. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's submissions regarding the justification of these expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground for statistical purposes, remanding the issue back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after verifying the expenses as per law. For the second ground regarding Section 80IB(10) deduction, the Tribunal relied on its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, which had held that certain flats exceeded the prescribed built-up area of 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of an additional wall and a box-like window. As the four flats in question were part of the same project and the same set of flats previously adjudicated, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to produce fresh evidence.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply but, considering the welfare nature of the law, granted one more opportunity. The impugned order was set aside for de-novo consideration by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO. This was to decide the issue afresh in light of additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding their entitlement to the ERS.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's dismissal was flawed as it did not provide reasons for its decision as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The case was remanded for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amount paid to a retiring partner for giving up their interest in the partnership firm is capital expenditure. The CIT(A)'s decision to treat it as revenue expenditure was reversed.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd. was a genuine entity, implying the assessees' sale/purchase results should be accepted. However, Section 40A(3) disallowances were upheld as the assessees did not justify cash purchases under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex parte, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd. was a genuine entity, implying the assessees' sale/purchase results should be accepted. However, Section 40A(3) disallowances were upheld as the assessees did not justify cash purchases under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd. was a genuine entity, implying the assessees' sale/purchase results should be accepted. However, Section 40A(3) disallowances were upheld as the assessees did not justify cash purchases under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd. was a genuine entity, implying the assessees' sale/purchase results should be accepted. However, Section 40A(3) disallowances were upheld as the assessees did not justify cash purchases under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal held that since M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd. was found to be a genuine entity, the sale/purchase results of the assessees should be accepted. However, the Section 40A(3) disallowances were upheld as the assessees did not justify cash purchases under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Blue Bird India Ltd. was a genuine entity, implying the assessees' sale/purchase results should be accepted. However, Section 40A(3) disallowances were upheld as the assessees did not justify cash purchases under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal held that investments made in fixed deposits out of sale proceeds of capital assets are considered utilization of net consideration for acquisition of another capital asset under Section 11(1A). Therefore, when the entire income was applied for charitable purposes, filing of Form 10B was not necessary.
The Tribunal held that the under-construction building, not being used for business, could not be included in the block of assets. However, the denial of exemption under Section 54/54F at the threshold was incorrect. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the exemption claim.