Loading ITAT cases…
326 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal partly allowed appeals concerning additions for unexplained cash credits, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit rate of 2% on deposits. However, appeals challenging the penalty under Section 271B for delayed audit reports were dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed appeals concerning additions for unexplained cash credits, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit rate of 2% on deposits. However, appeals challenging the penalty under Section 271B for delayed audit reports were dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed appeals concerning additions for unexplained cash credits, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit rate of 2% on deposits. However, appeals challenging the penalty under Section 271B for delayed audit reports were dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed appeals concerning additions for unexplained cash credits, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit rate of 2% on deposits. However, appeals challenging the penalty under Section 271B for delayed audit reports were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to grant one opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A was not leviable as the assessee had disclosed all material facts and offered a bona fide explanation, satisfying the conditions of section 270A(6)(a). For the penalty under section 271B, the Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report due to director disputes and pandemic, thus deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it reasoned and conclusive. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer, after verifying the evidence as directed by the CIT(A), had granted relief to the assessee, and the Revenue could not controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's action of claiming Section 80P deduction and marking 'No' to opting for the new tax regime in the ITR, despite filing Form 10-IF, indicated an intention to remain under the old regime. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the CPC's action.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored both the disallowance of expenses and the addition of share capital to the Assessing Officer's file. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the AO to re-examine the issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's profit was affected by substantial depreciation due to high fixed asset investment, and thus directed the TPO to consider PBDIT as the most appropriate profit level indicator. It also directed the TPO to allow working capital adjustment and verify brought forward losses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by applying a liberal and pragmatic approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by applying a liberal and pragmatic approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposit could not be treated as unexplained income, a reasonable profit rate should be applied to the deposits. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a net profit of 2% of the cash deposits as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted additional evidence that could prove the genuineness of the purchases. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration in light of this new evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the applications constituted a sufficient cause for condonation, especially considering the recent legislative amendment empowering the Commissioner to condone such delays. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. To advance substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had made out a case of 'sufficient cause'. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering a similar issue in the assessee's own case, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was bad in law as it was issued beyond the three-year period and the alleged escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. The approval for reassessment was also found to be granted by an incorrect authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the applications constituted a sufficient cause for condonation, especially considering the recent legislative amendment empowering the Commissioner to condone such delays. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should have been taken. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses was not justified due to sufficient interest-free funds available and lack of nexus with borrowed funds. The disallowance of construction and security expenses was also set aside for verification.
The Tribunal found that the service tax pertained to earlier years and was crystallized in the current year due to project non-feasibility. Since it was supported by evidence and not disputed by revenue, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided, including the death of the tax consultant and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be taxed at normal rates and not the Maximum Marginal Rate, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the purchase consideration and the DVO's determined FMV was within the permissible tolerance limit of 10%. Therefore, no addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was warranted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on investments made with a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The lower authorities' reasoning for denial was not accepted.
The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions realistic and that the AO rejected the claim solely on the ground of not filing a revised return. The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be deprived of legitimate claims and granted an opportunity to substantiate the case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to provide complete donor details to the lower authorities. However, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's submission of having compiled necessary details, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter for denovo consideration, directing that the appellant be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, directing the CIT to provide adequate opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided, including the death of the tax consultant and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be taxed at normal rates and not the Maximum Marginal Rate, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided, including the death of the tax consultant and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be taxed at normal rates and not the Maximum Marginal Rate, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A was not in accordance with law because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact clause of sub-section (9) under which the penalty was imposed. This failure rendered the penalty order unsustainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the deficiencies pointed out by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh consideration of the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative credit society from funds deposited with cooperative banks or other banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Dividend income is also eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the rejection by the CIT(E) was in limine due to a typographical error in filing the application. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the service tax pertained to earlier years and was crystallized in the current year due to project non-feasibility. Since it was supported by evidence and not disputed by revenue, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on incorrect facts, specifically the incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence. The CIT was directed to re-examine the applications de novo.
The Tribunal held that the payment to a retiring partner for giving up their interest in the partnership firm is capital expenditure. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income, as the issue was debatable and the claim was made in good faith.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications mechanically. It found that the delay in filing the 80G application was procedural and not deliberate, and that the assessee had made efforts to rectify the issues regarding withdrawals. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents allowing condonation of delay in such cases.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate the cash deposits with primary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors. The Tribunal also noted that the property was jointly purchased with the husband.