Loading ITAT cases…
307 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal held that payments received under an ERS, if voluntary and without legal obligation on the employer, are not 'profits in lieu of salary' under Section 17(3). Therefore, the AO's reclassification and consequent reduction in relief were incorrect.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits, considering the delay was due to bonafide reasons and substantial justice is important.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the assessee's failure to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the alleged cash depositors. The additional evidence admitted by the CIT(A) was also questioned.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the six-year limitation period and was therefore bad in law. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the addition made on account of unexplained deposits was unsustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of capital asset, as defined under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, occurred in FY 2006-07 when the assessee relinquished their rights and received consideration. Therefore, capital gains were taxable in AY 2007-08, not AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal held that Section 37(1) and Section 80G operate independently. CSR expenditure, if paid to eligible funds under Section 80G, can be allowed. The AO's allowance of the deduction was a plausible view, and the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the cash deposits were from the society's normal business activity of providing credit facilities to its members and were accounted for. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no contrary material from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it failed to specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for under-reporting or misreporting of income. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case with evidence. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to reconsider the application denovo.
The Tribunal observed that the additional evidence was not filed before the AO/TPO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, directing them to consider the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the amount received under the voluntary retirement scheme does not constitute termination of employment and is not taxable under Section 56(2)(xi). The additions made by the lower authorities were deleted.
The tribunal held that since the assessee did not have the necessary approval under Section 10(23C)(iv), exemption could not be granted. However, it agreed that only net income should be taxed and directed the AO to verify the assessee's expenditure claims.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application on technical grounds without examining the merits. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E should only be calculated from 01.06.2015, as the amendment to Section 200A(c) empowering such levy is prospective. The matter was restored to the TDS Officer for recalculation.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to his file. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the application afresh on merits after affording the assessee a due opportunity of hearing and considering all submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued after the period prescribed by law, following a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the notice and consequential assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amount received under the voluntary retirement scheme does not constitute termination of employment and therefore Section 56(2)(xi) is not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that similar payments to other employees were accepted as capital receipts.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Department's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in estimating the income based on gross credit/turnover without considering payments to farmers. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to verify the assessee's claim regarding deductions.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received on voluntary retirement, as per the scheme, does not constitute termination of employment. Therefore, Section 56(2)(xi) is not applicable, and the amount is a capital receipt.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked if the assessee has not derived any benefit from the cessation of liability due to accumulated losses. Since the assessee had incurred substantial losses which had lapsed, no benefit was derived, and thus the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked if the assessee has not derived any benefit from the cessation of liability due to accumulated losses. Since the assessee had incurred substantial losses which had lapsed, no benefit was derived, and thus the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the matters related to incorrect additions and set-off of losses to the Assessing Officer for verification. For the intra-group services, the Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred but remanded the issue of Arm's Length Price (ALP) to the TPO for examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's additional ground of appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt 4% net profit on the total deposits as income. The Tribunal found this approach to be in the interest of justice, following precedents from coordinate benches.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's additional ground of appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt 4% net profit on the total deposits as income. The Tribunal found this approach to be in the interest of justice, following precedents from coordinate benches.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's additional ground of appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt 4% net profit on the total deposits as income. The Tribunal found this approach to be in the interest of justice, following precedents from coordinate benches.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate their claims with evidence regarding the cash deposits and business turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to decide grounds not adjudicated by the first appellate authority. Therefore, the legal issues and issues on merits were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate their claims with evidence regarding the cash deposits and business turnover.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate their claims with evidence regarding the cash deposits and business turnover.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being passed on a non-existing entity. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on this legal issue and merits.
The Tribunal held that deductions claimed under Chapter VIA, such as Provident Fund and LIC premium deposits appearing in Form 16, and credit for taxes deducted at source, deserve to be allowed. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that deductions claimed under Chapter VIA, such as Provident Fund and LIC premium deposits appearing in Form 16, and credit for taxes deducted at source, deserve to be allowed. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the reasonable cause of the wife's illness. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion was not correct as it did not examine the source of cash payments made by the assessee to DNK. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing further examination of DNK's income offering and the assessee's source of funds.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on a specified date.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on a specified date.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by excluding investments in Mutual Funds and Tax Free Bonds. If the calculated disallowance is less than the suo motu disallowance, no further disallowance will be made.
The Tribunal found glaring mistakes in the assessment order, such as treating cash withdrawals as unexplained cash deposits and discrepancies in depreciation calculations. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding the nature of transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence, as the assessee was unaware of notices sent to incorrect email addresses.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal, following Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions, held that primary credit co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) on interest income earned from other cooperative banks.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as the interest income was derived from investments with cooperative societies. The disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was also questioned on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by excluding investments in Mutual Funds and Tax Free Bonds. If the calculated disallowance is less than the suo motu disallowance, no further disallowance will be made.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish details. It also accepted the net profit declared by the assessee, finding no justification for the higher estimation by the AO.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that a liberal, pragmatic approach should be adopted. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.