Loading ITAT cases…
307 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees are directed to file revised computations to claim this exemption and any resultant refund.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees are directed to file revised computations to claim this exemption and any resultant refund.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees are directed to file revised computations to claim this exemption and any resultant refund.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees are directed to file revised computations to claim this exemption and any resultant refund.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees are directed to file revised computations to claim this exemption and any resultant refund.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had applied his mind and consciously chose not to invoke Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE, considering the activity generating the cash was known and acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees are directed to file revised computations to claim this exemption and any resultant refund.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay in filing without sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 5,52,000/- and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision for a prior assessment year, held that the entire deposits could not be added as income. It directed the Assessing Officer to apply a net profit of 10% on the deposits.
The Tribunal held that Form 10 was filed within the extended due date for filing the return of income. It also found that the assessee had not claimed the capital expenditure as application of income and directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits and cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, stating that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay in the earlier appeal and decide the matter on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted sufficient evidence regarding the source of the Rs. 15,00,000 payment for the flat. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deemed to be without merit.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and held that the income from undisclosed transactions should be calculated on a peak balance basis. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the evidence due to lack of proper compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order based on non-compliance, but acknowledged that only one notice was issued and non-compliance might not be wanton. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated correctly as the banks reported transactions under the old PAN for the relevant financial year. However, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de-novo adjudication, directing that both parties be given an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated correctly as the banks reported transactions under the old PAN for the relevant financial year. However, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de-novo adjudication, directing that both parties be given an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and held that the income from undisclosed transactions should be calculated on a peak balance basis. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in arguments from both sides and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to raise objections.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision for a prior assessment year, held that the entire deposits could not be added as income. It directed the Assessing Officer to apply a net profit of 10% on the deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It further set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, directing a speaking order.
The tribunal noted that the revenue had no objections to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was withdrawn and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings based on this invalid notice were quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessment was made ex-parte (u/s 144) and the assessee's submission that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not consider their written submissions, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and held that the income from undisclosed transactions should be calculated on a peak balance basis. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and held that the income from undisclosed transactions should be calculated on a peak balance basis. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the 80G approval solely on the ground of lacking 12AB registration was not justified, especially when the assessee's status as a government-financed educational institution was not in dispute. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and held that the income from undisclosed transactions should be calculated on a peak balance basis. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) may have misconstrued the eligibility conditions for Section 80JJAA. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that difficulties in collating data due to director disputes and NCLT proceedings prevented proper substantiation. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for one final opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. The AO had conducted a plausible inquiry based on the assessee's submissions, and the CIT failed to point out any specific non-compliance with the eligibility conditions for the deductions.
The Tribunal found that the facts of the present appeal were identical to a previous assessment year where the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the interest income earned from deposits with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This was based on previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and file necessary documents.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in similar cases, restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to adjudicate the delay condonation and deal with the matter afresh in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient material to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the source, and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) correctly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, which demonstrated that the investments in property were made in prior years and properly accounted for.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, as it did not provide the AO an opportunity to examine or rebut the same. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to follow Rule 46A by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence admitted. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the assessment order for de-novo adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the alleged cash payment by the assessee. The AO's addition was based on insufficient and unproven documents, and the assessee's denial supported by banking records was accepted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to respond to notices without adjournment.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments that the lower authorities considered figures from other assessment years and that additional evidence required verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.