Loading ITAT cases…
307 orders · Page 4 of 7
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 appeals. It restored all issues raised on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not merely executing a works contract but was undertaking the independent development of infrastructure facilities, fulfilling all conditions for the deduction under Section 80IA(4). The assessee's responsibilities included design, engineering, procurement, execution, and operation/maintenance, involving significant investment and risk.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored all issues raised on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and condoned it. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction claim under Section 35(1)(ii) by following judicial precedents. It also deleted an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 10 lakh on other expenses, finding no specific error pointed out by the revenue. For lorry expenses, an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 12 lakh was sustained, considering past consistent approach.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, finding that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application for 80G registration after the disposal of the 12AB application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was due to a technical problem and not intentional. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and stamp duty value was less than 10%, thus no addition could be made under section 56(2)(vii)(b). However, the deduction under section 80C was disallowed as it was not claimed in the return of income, as per Section 80A(5).
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on 12.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation as per the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period, following the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were business transactions and directed the Assessing Officer to tax only the net profit at 2% of the deposits. The remaining addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored all issues raised on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction claim under Section 35(1)(ii) by following judicial precedents. It also deleted an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 10 lakh on other expenses, finding no specific error pointed out by the revenue. For lorry expenses, an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 12 lakh was sustained, considering past consistent approach.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the facts, especially regarding the nature of the security deposit and the termination of the agreement. The matter was set aside for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of the loan creditors during remand proceedings, making the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable. It also found that the assessee had sufficient own capital to cover interest-free advances.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that figures in Form 26AS are not conclusive proof of income and that when book receipts exceed Form 26AS figures, no addition is warranted. The Tribunal also noted that similar additions were deleted in a prior assessment year without Revenue appeal on that specific issue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee's legal heirs.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of the loan creditors during remand proceedings, making the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable. It also found that the assessee had sufficient own capital to cover interest-free advances.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of the loan creditors during remand proceedings, making the CIT(A)'s order unsustainable. It also found that the assessee had sufficient own capital to cover interest-free advances.
The Tribunal held that when there is a difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, the AO should refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation. The Tribunal cited a High Court judgment emphasizing the DVO's role to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) must provide an opportunity of hearing and adjudicate the grounds raised.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not address the merits of the case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to provide explanations for the delay in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, directing the assessee to present its reasons for the delay to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was instructed to pass a fresh order after considering these submissions.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 154(7) of the Act are clear and unambiguous, prescribing a strict 4-year time limit for rectification. Since the application was filed beyond this period, it was rightly dismissed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 154(7) of the Act are clear and unambiguous, prescribing a strict 4-year time limit for rectification. Since the application was filed beyond this period, it was rightly dismissed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 215,40,82,300/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of the IT Rules. The Tribunal found that the various decisions relied upon by the CIT(A)/NFAC were distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. Respectfully following various cited decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the provision was introduced to curb unaccounted money, and since no such presumption was drawn in the present case, the application of Section 56(2)(viib) was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that the Chennai Bench in Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd. and the Mumbai Bench in M/s. Impact Retail Tech Fund Pvt Ltd. had also held that the provision's intent was to curb unaccounted money and that its application was unwarranted without evidence of such generation or circulation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.8 were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 154(7) of the Act are clear and unambiguous, prescribing a strict 4-year time limit for rectification. Since the application was filed beyond this period, it was rightly dismissed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back. The assessee was directed to provide reasons for the delay to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the defect memo was issued, but the assessee did not rectify the defect by filing the assessment order. Due to the non-compliance and absence of the assessee, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 154(7) of the Act are clear and unambiguous, prescribing a strict 4-year time limit for rectification. Since the application was filed beyond this period, it was rightly dismissed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing them to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations in cases of non-deliberate delay.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should be adopted for condonation. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption solely for the delayed filing of Form 10B is incorrect, as it is a procedural requirement. The Tribunal followed previous judicial precedents which allow exemption even if the audit report is filed belatedly during appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is not taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no change in facts and circumstances and no adverse material presented by the Revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) and present their case 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. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.