Loading ITAT cases…
184 tribunal orders from the Rajkot bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 184 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation, as amendments to Section 149 were not retrospective and could not revive expired time limits. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and subsequent orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and the assessee had provided sufficient details, including ledger copies, bank statements, and ITR acknowledgments. The PCIT failed to specify what further inquiries should have been made by the AO, and therefore, the revisionary order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while a penalty is leviable for non-compliance, it should be restricted to the first default. The penalty for subsequent defaults for the same issue is not intended by the legislature.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The AO was directed to proceed with the case and decide it as per law.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal in accordance with the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, finding no infirmity in the disallowance. The assessee failed to provide supporting details for the claim of deduction under Section 80P for the specific incomes, even before the ITAT.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing the receipt in the hands of the dissolved firm solely based on the PAN number without disproving the assessee's claim of dissolution and taxation in the proprietary concern's hands.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request in accordance with the scheme's provisions.
The Tribunal held that the RBI guidelines, particularly Section 45Q of the RBI Act, have overriding effect over the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was bound to follow the RBI's directions regarding income recognition from NPAs.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C is rebuttable and the assessee had provided evidence that the cash was received for expenses to be incurred on behalf of clients. The Revenue failed to bring corroborative evidence to disprove the assessee's contention.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order and liable to be set aside. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh, detailed, and reasoned order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 139(1) regarding mandatory return filing for claiming deductions is applicable from AY 2020-21 and not retrospectively. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the claim under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets of a charitable trust even if the expenditure for acquiring such assets was treated as application of income. This is to avoid double deduction and is in line with established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessees had opted to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV scheme benefit could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that pest control services are covered under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be detailed and reasoned, requiring no interference.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal. Citing provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given the benefit of TDS credit if it is duly remitted by the deductor and supported by TDS certificates, even if not claimed in the original return due to non-reflection in Form 26AS. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed a detailed and reasoned order. Since the assessee had already disallowed an amount greater than what the AO had calculated under Section 14A, no further disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to telephone expenses, office expenses, Section 80G deduction, interest income, and the fall in gross profit. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restriction of personal use of vehicle expenses. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals, as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme were approved. The withdrawal was in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, referencing provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessee was granted liberty to file miscellaneous applications if any issues remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals as their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, were approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal based on the principle of parity and consistency. The department had accepted cash deposits as genuine in the cases of other partners of the firm, leading to no adverse action against them.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to technical defects in the assessment proceedings, specifically regarding the approval under Section 153D and the lack of specific notice under Section 274. The technical issues were found to be decisive.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, as her absence was due to health reasons. The failure to consider this evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice.