Loading ITAT cases…
307 orders · Page 3 of 7
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 the assessee's explanation for the delay to be insufficient and unsubstantiated. The assessee failed to provide details of the tax consultant or evidence for the outdated email address, leading the Tribunal to conclude there was no sufficient cause for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made in the 143(1) intimation merges with the assessment order under Section 143(3) and is therefore appealable. The CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds that it was filed against the 143(3) order and not the 143(1) intimation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, especially as the assessee had expired and the legal heirs were not properly brought on record. The order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without examining the merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the assessee's claim that the land is agricultural and their current ability to provide evidence, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for the new tax regime in AY 2021-22 and had not withdrawn it, the benefit should continue for AY 2023-24. The AO/CPC and CIT(A) were not justified in denying the claim.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had completed proceedings ex-parte without granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the additions made by the AO. This was primarily due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance and failure to provide any evidence or explanation for their claims.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was directed to be decided on merits by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present their case, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case with requisite details. The assessee was directed to submit these details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation method (DCF) was permissible under Rule 11UA and that the Assessing Officer could not reject it without proper justification. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income has been earned, as the amendment to Section 14A is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was wrongly levied as the assessee had a legitimate claim based on judicial precedents and the relevant amendment was retrospective. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without sufficient evidence and without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The reliance on a third-party statement without corroboration was deemed insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Act by not stating the points for determination and reasons for the decision. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation method (DCF) was permissible under Rule 11UA and that the Assessing Officer could not reject it without proper justification. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempt income has been earned, as the amendment to Section 14A is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's illiteracy and lack of awareness of faceless proceedings. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not in accordance with Section 151(ii) of the Act for reassessment beyond three years. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had indeed inquired about the advance made to Dr. Bhagwan Birmole and received a reply from the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest, making the revision order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for imports and payments through banking channels, and the AO failed to provide corroborative evidence or allow cross-examination of key witnesses.