Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that it was unclear if the duplicate PAN had been cancelled and if the transactions from that PAN were accounted for. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the revised development plan constituted a new project and did not have continuity with the initial approval obtained before the cut-off date. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently maintained a 'safe custody account' as a policy, which was essentially cash in hand shown under a different head. An adjustment entry transferred this amount to the cash book, explaining the opening balance.
The Tribunal noted that it was unclear if the duplicate PAN had been cancelled and if the transactions from that PAN were accounted for. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions constituted under-reporting rather than misreporting of income, especially since all relevant details were furnished and a revised computation was accepted. The penalty was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including the mother's income tax returns and balance sheets, which showed that the funds for the investment belonged to the assessee's mother. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the revised development plan constituted a new project and did not have continuity with the initial approval obtained before the cut-off date. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB.
The tribunal held that an assessment order cannot be passed on a deceased person. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed and deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty, following a previous order where similar penalty was deleted. The Tribunal noted that mere denial of deduction does not automatically attract penalty, especially when the assessee provided a detailed explanation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty, following a previous order where similar penalty was deleted. The Tribunal noted that mere denial of deduction does not automatically attract penalty, especially when the assessee provided a detailed explanation.
The Tribunal held that the name mismatch alone should not lead to denial of registration, especially since the assessee undertook to rectify the trust deed and other documents to match the PAN. However, the genuineness of activities requires further substantiation.
The tribunal held that an assessment order cannot be passed on a deceased person. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed and deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case at the appellate stage. Therefore, the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the grounds challenging the reopening and ex-parte assessment were not pressed and dismissed. For the addition on account of bank deposits, the Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court precedent, directed the estimation of income at 10% of the total deposits, considering the assessee's business of contract and carting.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 on similar grounds as a previous year, where the issue was already accepted, was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the NFAC/CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans and share capital, and the rejection of books of account was not justified as the assessee had explained the fall in gross profit with supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the addition to the block of assets, service tax expense, and interest on late TDS payment were correctly allowed by the AO. However, the disallowance of employee PF & ESI contributions paid after the due date was upheld based on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made sufficient compliance after receiving the e-mail notices, and the Assessing Officer did not provide reasonable time for response. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance was deleted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim of having paid 40% of the service tax liability under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme (SVLDRS) and grant relief accordingly. For the remaining 60%, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify if it was offered as income in AY 2020-21 and grant relief if facts supported it.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in nationalized banks and other institutions is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. It also directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of income tax expenses.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiry based on the details submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT's view, differing from the AO's on the same facts, was not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are to be considered cooperative societies for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are to be considered cooperative societies for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the addition on unsecured loans, finding the assessee had discharged the primary onus and the AO lacked adverse material. For agricultural income, it allowed an estimated amount, partly upholding the AO's addition.
The Tribunal held that the addition was illogical and unjustifiable, leading to double taxation. The assessee had not claimed the TDS, and the firm had accounted for the turnover, thus there was no loss to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine transactions through recognized brokers and banking channels. The Assessing Officer relied solely on an investigation report without independent inquiry.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot sustain penalty proceedings. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was also deleted as the quantum addition itself was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are to be considered cooperative societies for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot sustain penalty proceedings. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was also deleted as the quantum addition itself was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot sustain penalty proceedings. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was also deleted as the quantum addition itself was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants as required by Section 68. The AO's addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- on account of bogus share application and premium was confirmed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the assessee failed to provide revised tax audit forms and complete employee details. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for examination of revised forms and employee payment details.
The Tribunal held that the difference in property value was within the permissible tolerance range as per judicial precedents, and thus the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) was deleted. Regarding the loan, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged his primary onus and the CIT(A) wrongly converted the addition without a show cause notice, hence the addition under Section 68 was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC/CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was remitted back for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings should also be remitted. The penalty, if any, would depend on the outcome of the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to his representative's illness. The CIT(A)'s order was also not in accordance with Section 250(6) as it did not discuss the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's claim of cash sales just before demonetization was doubtful, the books of account and purchases were not rejected. Therefore, a reasonable disallowance was made to avoid revenue leakage.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It was found that the AO's additions were based on guess work and lacked direct evidence connecting the assessee to the alleged transactions. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination of key individuals was also a significant factor.
The tribunal held that the assessee had ultimately co-operated and complied with the notices during the assessment proceedings, which were finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Following established precedents, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the reasonable explanation provided by the assessee. The quantum assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside.
The tribunal held that the assessee had ultimately co-operated and complied with the notices during the assessment proceedings, which were finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Following established precedents, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal held that the assessee had ultimately co-operated and complied with the notices during the assessment proceedings, which were finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Following established precedents, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal held that the assessee had ultimately co-operated and complied with the notices during the assessment proceedings, which were finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Following established precedents, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal held that the assessee had ultimately co-operated and complied with the notices during the assessment proceedings, which were finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Following established precedents, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal held that the assessee had ultimately co-operated and complied with the notices during the assessment proceedings, which were finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Following established precedents, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the reasonable explanation provided by the assessee. The quantum assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, and consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was set aside.
The tribunal held that the assessee had ultimately co-operated and complied with the notices during the assessment proceedings, which were finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Following established precedents, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to contest the case on merits.