Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on the fixed deposit, created as a mandatory condition for availing subsidy, should be considered business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB. The Tribunal also deleted additions related to savings account interest and interest on income tax refund.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is void ab initio because the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the penalty, are also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee followed the mercantile/accrual system of accounting, and income accrues when the right to receive vests, even if actual receipt is delayed. The AO incorrectly inferred fictitious income by ignoring subsequent bank receipts and customer ledgers.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely based on statements from a search in another entity's case without independent inquiry or specific mention of the assessee. The assessee had provided documentary evidence for purchases made through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is void ab initio because the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the penalty, are also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Denial of FTC solely on account of late filing of Form No. 67 leads to impermissible double taxation and is contrary to the object of Section 90.
The Tribunal held that set-off of losses from the same business should be allowed. After adjusting for disclosed income and losses, a remaining amount of Rs. 26,430 was considered for estimated addition.
The Tribunal deleted the penalties for AY 2016-17, finding that the assessee had paid the entire tax demand and made full disclosures. It was held that a bonafide mistake in tax calculation or a computational error due to oversight should not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal deleted the penalties for AY 2016-17, finding that the assessee had paid the entire tax demand and made full disclosures. It was held that a bonafide mistake in tax calculation or a computational error due to oversight should not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals for AY 2014-15 were dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay. The judgment does not specify the outcome for AY 2016-17 or the specific reasoning for the dismissal of the AY 2014-15 appeals beyond the delay.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act was not signed, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid approval were quashed.
The Tribunal is dealing with appeals that were dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The judgment does not specify the final decision on the merits of the reassessment or penalty orders, as the primary issue addressed is the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals for AY 2014-15 were dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay. The judgment does not specify the outcome for AY 2016-17 or the specific reasoning for the dismissal of the AY 2014-15 appeals beyond the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals for AY 2014-15 were dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay. The judgment does not specify the outcome for AY 2016-17 or the specific reasoning for the dismissal of the AY 2014-15 appeals beyond the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals for AY 2014-15 were dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay. The judgment does not specify the outcome for AY 2016-17 or the specific reasoning for the dismissal of the AY 2014-15 appeals beyond the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals for AY 2014-15 were dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay. The judgment does not specify the outcome for AY 2016-17 or the specific reasoning for the dismissal of the AY 2014-15 appeals beyond the delay.
The Tribunal deleted the penalties for AY 2016-17, finding that the assessee had paid the entire tax demand and made full disclosures. It was held that a bonafide mistake in tax calculation or a computational error due to oversight should not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10 and Form 10B, following precedents from the Gujarat High Court and its own co-ordinate benches. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the forms and adjudication of the exemption claim.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the three-year period without meeting the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- for escaped income as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was invalid as there was no tangible material to suggest escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose true and full facts. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal, considering the smallness of the amount and agreement between parties, directed an ad hoc estimated addition of 10% of the unaccounted purchases. This amounts to Rs. 18,499/-.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and sustained the addition at 8% of the 'on-money' amount, directing it to be taxed at normal income tax rates. The Tribunal noted that the entire 'on-money' cannot be treated as profit.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and sustained the addition at 8% of the 'on-money' amount, directing it to be taxed at normal income tax rates. The Tribunal noted that the entire 'on-money' cannot be treated as profit.
The Tribunal held that there was no under-reporting of income as the assessee genuinely believed that the sale of agricultural land was not subject to capital gains tax. The sale consideration was reported in Form 26AS, and taxes were withheld, indicating no mala fide intention.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating natural justice principles. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the dominant object of the trust appeared to be profit-making, it should be assessed under the head 'income from business and profession'. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the income and expenditure and compute the net profit accordingly.
The Tribunal held that while the dominant object of the trust appeared to be profit-making, it should be assessed under the head 'income from business and profession'. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the income and expenditure and compute the net profit accordingly.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit the required documentary evidence and participate effectively in the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for rebate under Section 87A even if the income includes short-term capital gains taxable under Section 111A, provided the total income does not exceed Rs. 7,00,000 and the assessee opted for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC(1A). The denial by the CPC was based on system logic, not statutory mandate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that the reasons provided constituted sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the COVID-19 period and the assessee's reliance on tax advisors. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, restoring the matter for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the agreement of both parties on the smallness of the amount and to plug revenue leakage, directed an ad-hoc estimated addition of 5% (Rs. 44,228/-) instead of the full amount.
The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts, quantitative records, and made payments through banking channels. The sales were also accepted. Therefore, the addition was reduced.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating natural justice, and therefore restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the mandatory notice under section 148A(b) was not issued or generated, and the required approval under section 151 was not obtained from the specified authority. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating natural justice principles, and thus restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard and violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, citing violation of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order. The penalty appeal was also allowed as the additions on which it was based were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide contemporaneous evidence to prove the asset was stock-in-trade. However, considering the smallness of the amount and to meet the ends of justice, an ad-hoc estimated addition of 12% was made.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to plead their case and failed to consider the submitted documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard.