Loading ITAT cases…
66 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details and evidence of its activities in response to the CIT's notices. The CIT had not granted adequate opportunity for hearing and further verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of cash deposits was beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable and should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the inclusion of exempt income in the return of income was an error apparent from the record. The AO was directed to rectify the computation of income by excluding the exempt income and grant the necessary relief.
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission to withdraw the appeals as the disputed demand had been paid and there were no outstanding dues. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since the bank account was joint and reflected in the husband's financial statements, and his case was already scrutinized, the addition in the assessee's hands was not tenable. The addition was based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for fresh decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and be heard. The assessee was cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a detailed and scientific basis for its profit computation, which was also accepted in preceding years. Therefore, the AO's acceptance of the claim was a plausible view, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without proper application of mind, as it misquoted the amount of cash deposit and the bank involved. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment was limited scrutiny, and the issue of cash deposits was outside the scope of the original scrutiny reasons. The PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had already examined the issue of loan repayment and issued a show cause notice, taking a conscious decision. The Tribunal also found that Section 69C was not applicable as loan repayment is not an expenditure, and the source was explained. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under section 80P for AY 2019-20 solely on the ground of late filing of the return (under section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) was not a permissible prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). This was because the specific amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such disallowance was effective from AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under section 80P for AY 2019-20 solely on the ground of late filing of the return (under section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) was not a permissible prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). This was because the specific amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such disallowance was effective from AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal rectified the error in its previous order. The name of the assessee's Authorized Representative was corrected to Shri Mehul Ranpura, replacing the erroneous mention of Shri Mehul Patel.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the eligibility of the Rudrapur unit for deduction under Section 80IC, especially as it was the first year of claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors, and any procedural lapse under the Companies Act did not automatically render the credit unexplained under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under section 80P for AY 2019-20 solely on the ground of late filing of the return (under section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) was not a permissible prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a). This was because the specific amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such disallowance was effective from AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be taxed only on commission income earned as a shroff/angadia, rejecting the Revenue's claim for taxing entire cash deposits. The issue of computing the commission income was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the letting of the property, as evidenced by the partnership deed and the nature of activities, constituted a business operation. Therefore, the rental income was rightly offered under the head 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that the letting of the property, as evidenced by the partnership deed and the nature of activities, constituted a business operation. Therefore, the rental income was rightly offered under the head 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that the letting of the property, as evidenced by the partnership deed and the nature of activities, constituted a business operation. Therefore, the rental income was rightly offered under the head 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that deemed income under Section 11(3) is not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) or 11(2) of the Act. Allowing such exemption would lead to unintended benefits and a circular issued by the CBDT supports this interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be taxed only on commission income earned as a shroff/angadia, rejecting the Revenue's claim for taxing entire cash deposits. The issue of computing the commission income was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the taxes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the letting of the property, as evidenced by the partnership deed and the nature of activities, constituted a business operation. Therefore, the rental income was rightly offered under the head 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that deemed income under Section 11(3) is not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) or 11(2) of the Act. Allowing such exemption would lead to unintended benefits and a circular issued by the CBDT supports this interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the extended limitation period of 16 years, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, could not be applied retrospectively as the original limitation period had already expired. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the prescribed limitation.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Principal CIT in the section 263 proceedings were already considered by the AO and were pending adjudication before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the Principal CIT could not invoke jurisdiction under section 263 for those issues.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT cannot initiate revision proceedings merely because he has a different opinion on the extent of inquiries made by the AO. If the AO has made inquiries and applied his mind, the order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for both unsecured loans. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a) was not permissible for the assessment year 2019-20. This was because the relevant amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such disallowance for late filing was effective from April 1, 2021, and the explanation to Section 143(1)(a)(ii) did not cover denial of deduction for late filing.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, noting the lender's death and the repayment of the loan. Relying on jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to produce supporting evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries and considered the materials placed on record before accepting the assessee's claim. The PCIT erred in invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard on that specific ground.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessees were not maintainable before it as the orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) are not appealable under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal restored the file to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence for the disputed cash credits and purchases, considering the quantum of additions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal was unjustifiable as the assessee was indeed required to file voyage returns manually. Furthermore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled as the underlying addition had been deleted by the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that a mere delay in filing Form 27C would not disentitle the assessee from the benefit, citing High Court and ITAT precedents. The matter was restored to the AO to consider the belatedly filed Form 27C.
The Tribunal dismissed several grounds of appeal, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly decided them based on the details provided by the assessee. However, two grounds related to unsecured loans and brought forward losses were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not benefit from the High Court judgment regarding non-confrontation of Explanation 2 to Section 263. The order passed under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessees were not maintainable before it as the orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) are not appealable under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) to examine whether the payments were made within the prescribed due dates as per Section 43B of the Act. The assessee was directed to produce supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the cash deposits being sourced from a consistently high cash balance maintained over the past three years and reflected in her income tax returns was uncontroverted. The Revenue failed to prove any subsequent utilization of this cash or point out infirmities in the assessee's explanations.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, finding no distinguishing facts presented by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was correct.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash transactions, and the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.
The Tribunal held that denying the deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return (under Section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) is not justifiable. The claim for deduction should be considered if the return is filed within the permissible time limits and further proceedings are pending.
The Tribunal held that denying the deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return (under Section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) is not justifiable. The claim for deduction should be considered if the return is filed within the permissible time limits and further proceedings are pending.
The Tribunal held that denying the deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return (under Section 139(4) instead of 139(1)) is not justifiable. The claim for deduction should be considered if the return is filed within the permissible time limits and further proceedings are pending.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash transactions, and the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.