Loading ITAT cases…
164 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have granted the assessee an opportunity to present its case, especially since an adjournment was sought. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the addition based on the DVO's report, finding that the assessee had not challenged the merits of the addition before the lower authorities. However, a ground regarding the allowability of the addition as application of income was remitted to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the addition based on the DVO's report, finding that the assessee had not challenged the merits of the addition before the lower authorities. However, a ground regarding the allowability of the addition as application of income was remitted to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the addition based on the DVO's report, finding that the assessee had not challenged the merits of the addition before the lower authorities. However, a ground regarding the allowability of the addition as application of income was remitted to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Pune Bench lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, as the assessee's territorial jurisdiction of PAN is at Nagpur. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile before the Nagpur Bench.
The ITAT held that in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned and the appeal should be decided on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was also directed to provide requisite details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the Pune Bench lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, as the assessee's territorial jurisdiction of PAN is at Nagpur. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile before the Nagpur Bench.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's report confirmed that the assessee had correctly filed the details for bad debts amounting to Rs. 10,55,83,490/-, but the total was inadvertently mentioned incorrectly in the ITR. Therefore, the entire claim of bad debts should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical issues.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding delayed payment of employee contributions to PF/ESIC, following a Supreme Court judgment. For the addition as unexplained income and the protective addition on WIP, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for fresh adjudication due to non-speaking orders and incorrect reasoning.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition. The Tribunal noted that similar issues for preceding assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee, and no fresh material was brought on record by the Revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground that activities had not commenced. The Supreme Court's decision in Ananda Social & Educational Trust was cited, stating that registration can be applied for by newly registered trusts. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that a literal interpretation of Section 80G(5) proviso clause (iii) leads to an absurd and unjust result for institutions that commenced activities long before provisional approval. They interpreted the clause to mean 'whichever is later' instead of 'whichever is earlier'.
The Tribunal held that furnishing the prescribed Audit Report in Form 10CCB is a condition precedent for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) was justified as the form was uploaded after the processing of the return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, especially considering the Covid-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. The appeal was set aside with a direction to condone the delay and decide the matter on merits.
The Tribunal held that furnishing the prescribed Audit Report in Form 10CCB is a condition precedent for claiming deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) was justified as the form was uploaded after the processing of the return.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESIC due to delayed payment, even if made before the return filing due date, is no longer debatable in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim regarding a specific loan from Mr. Rajendra Shinde, directing the deletion of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the addition. The second ground of appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) provided an unreasonably short period to respond to the notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have dealt with the merits of the case even in an ex parte order. Since the NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits, the matter needs to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the disallowance. The CIT(A)'s order was considered a speaking order that provided reasons for the deletion after considering the AO's reduced disallowance and the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen widow and the special circumstances, admitted additional evidence. It estimated the cost of construction and improvement, directing the AO to allow these as deductions while calculating Long Term Capital Gains.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's case to be strong on merits. It held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with other cooperative banks or scheduled banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and Section 80P(2)(a)(i) respectively, based on various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not commit any error in accepting the income of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee himself under the head 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal found that the assessee had claimed the entire amount as expenses without any supporting evidence, which was rightly disallowed by the AO. Regarding the 'real income' argument, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shiv Prakash Janak Raj And Co. Pvt. Ltd., stating that the concept of real income cannot be used to defeat the provisions of the Act. The assessee himself decided what to show, how much to show, and when to show it. The Tribunal noted that the income appeared on the portal in Form 26AS, and the assessee chose to declare only Rs. 1,75,00,000/- in the current year, carrying forward the balance. The Tribunal also observed that the civil suit by purchasers was filed after three years, and the assessee had not refunded the amount even after the suit, while also filing a complaint for recovery. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and dismissed the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted due verification and made detailed enquiries, not only in the case of the assessee but also in the case of the assessee's spouse. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order passed by the AO in the case of the assessee's wife, Smt. Soram Kaluram Gehlot, clearly indicated that shops 11 and 12 were purchased by her, and the addition on account of on-money payment was made in her hands under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was not erroneous concerning the payment of on-money for shop No. 12, as it was not purchased by the assessee. The Tribunal reiterated the settled proposition of law that for invoking Section 263, both conditions – the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue – must be satisfied. Since the order was found not to be erroneous, the twin conditions were not met. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the PCIT and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee an opportunity to submit the required details, considering the CBDT's circular extending due dates for filing applications.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not appear before the authorities as notices were sent to an unrelated email address. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had overlooked certain clauses in the trust deed that indicated objects for the public at large. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) did not fully consider the assessee's contentions and the sworn affidavit of the trustee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the ex-parte orders were bad in law due to reasonable cause for non-appearance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the ex-parte orders were bad in law due to reasonable cause for non-appearance. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not appear before the authorities as notices were sent to an unrelated email address. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not distinguishing between payments made to transporters and other suppliers. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify which payments were made to transporters and if the second proviso to Section 40A(3) was applicable.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the issue had been resolved with the grant of approval under Section 80G(5). The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment was correct. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IA, following previous rulings and CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a reasonable cause for accepting cash and that the penalty was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because it was initiated for under-reporting but imposed for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting. Furthermore, the specific limb of Section 270A(9) was not mentioned in the penalty notice, preventing the assessee from filing a proper reply.
The Tribunal held that there was no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure by the assessee. The revision was to correct a bona fide mistake, and even after the revision, the taxable income remained Nil, indicating no tax evasion or under-reporting.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment was correct. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IA, following previous rulings and CBDT circulars.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 50 lacs, holding that Section 69 was inapplicable as the amount represented loans (liability) and not investments, and the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries. The CIT(A) also deleted the addition of Rs. 2,68,70,000/-, finding the transaction pertained to a different assessment year and was conducted through banking channels by a firm in which the assessee was a partner.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment was correct. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IA, following previous rulings and CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment was correct. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IA, following previous rulings and CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment was correct. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IA, following previous rulings and CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO after admitting additional evidence. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of the utilization of borrowed funds for capital introduction in partnership firms.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should not have presumed genuineness solely because the disallowance was made under Section 40(a)(ia) and not Section 37(1). The matter was remanded to examine the genuineness of the expenditure and where the services were rendered.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not properly appreciated the facts presented by the assessee, who claimed the bank account was joint and the deposits belonged to her husband's disclosed business. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.