Loading ITAT cases…
227 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 227 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the reasoned order allowing exemption as it required factual examination beyond Section 143(1). For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide reliable and admissible evidence to prove the assessee's investment. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination of key witnesses and the reliance on secondary evidence were critical factors.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of actual services rendered, including obtaining necessary permissions, raising service tax bills, and furnishing lower deduction certificates. The statement of the third party was considered unsubstantiated in the context of the facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of actual services rendered, including obtaining necessary permissions, raising service tax bills, and furnishing lower deduction certificates. The statement of the third party was considered unsubstantiated in the context of the facts.
The Tribunal held that since the basis for the penalty (quantum additions) was deleted by a prior ITAT order, the penalty deletion by the CIT(A) was confirmed. For the other appeals, the Tribunal followed its own prior decision and directed the AO to allow exemption under Section 11, and also directed that interest be charged only on returned income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, stating that the fulfillment of exemption conditions required factual examination beyond Section 143(1). For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to remuneration and labour payments. It also directed the AO to re-examine the architect/MAP approval expenses and recompute interest under Section 234B based on returned income.
The Tribunal held that to render substantial justice, the additional evidence should be considered by the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after admitting the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee consistently follows a recognized method of accounting like the project completion method, the revenue cannot insist on another method without finding that the followed method distorts book results. The Tribunal noted that in a subsequent assessment year, the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal on similar grounds.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of specificity indicated a non-application of mind by the AO, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering it in the interest of substantial justice. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be reasoned. The CIT(A) had concluded that the amount was received for land purchase and disbursed to villagers, thus not taxable in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should not refuse registration solely on the grounds of lack of evidence for activities, especially when the charitable objects are not in doubt. The genuineness of the objects, not necessarily the commencement of activities, is the primary consideration at the registration stage.
The Tribunal held that to render substantial justice, the CIT(A) should consider all evidence. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the ground challenging the AO's jurisdiction was not raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication and also restored other grounds on merits for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. The issue concerned the consideration of capital gains in the hands of HUF instead of the individual.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to prove the cash credit was unexplained. The identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor were considered proved.
The Tribunal found that to ensure substantial justice, all material facts need to be considered. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11. It relied on the proviso to Section 12A(2) and judicial precedents, stating that since assessment proceedings were pending, the retrospective grant of registration should be considered.
The Tribunal found no material to support the assessee's claim that the 8% estimation by the CIT(A) was excessive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.
For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal followed a High Court ruling and deleted the addition, as the assessee had filed under Section 44AD and deposits were lower than turnover. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal reduced the estimated income from 5% to 4% of deposits.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to produce books of account and relevant documents before the Assessing Officer for assessment. A cost of ₹5,000 was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made for employee's contribution to PF and ESIC if deposited within the due date for filing the return of income, following the Supreme Court decision in Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have considered the genuineness of the objectives of the trust and not solely focused on the commencement of activities, especially when the trust was in the process of establishing its objectives. Registration cannot be refused at the threshold if the objects are genuine and activities are yet to commence.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO was not justified in adding the cost of opening work-in-progress as it appeared in the balance sheet and was supported by bills. The tribunal also agreed that no leave encashment expense was claimed by the assessee, and the figure in the ITR was a software error.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be sustained as the revenue failed to establish that the notices of hearing were actually served on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of registration under Section 12AA, the Commissioner is to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the objects and not necessarily the commencement of activities. The CIT(E) had not doubted the charitable objects of the society, therefore, registration could not be denied on the ground that activities had not yet commenced.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it was issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. This indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation at 30% on excavators by following its previous order. For the interest disallowance, a portion was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification, while the remaining amount was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish that the notices of hearing were served on the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance with the notices cannot be sustained.