Loading ITAT cases…
94 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Visvas scheme was accepted. The revenue had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the registration granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) was regular, not provisional, despite the technical glitch in Form 10AC. The CBDT circular clarified that such entries should be read as regular registration.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under clause (i) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) is a regular approval, not provisional, despite the Form 10AC erroneously mentioning it as 'provisional' due to technical glitches. The CBDT circular clarified this position.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted as a commission agent for groundnut trading and that the cash deposits and withdrawals were related to payments to farmers. Considering various precedents, the Tribunal held that taxing the entire amount was not justified and directed the AO to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the cash deposit.
The Tribunal held that while the PCIT had valid jurisdiction to invoke Section 263, the order was passed in violation of natural justice principles as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to an incorrect email address being used for communication. Therefore, the order passed by the PCIT was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT Surat, in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, had restricted the disallowances to 8% of the turnover on an estimated basis. Following established legal principles and various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when additions are made on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal based on their participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal, noting that their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 had been approved. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the Covid period. Regarding the penalty for non-compliance, the Tribunal referred to a precedent that such penalties should be restricted to the first default.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to 5% of the total purchases, noting consistency with prior rulings. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as additions were made on an estimated basis.
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 3,45,000/- as unexplained income. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the evidence provided by the assessee was self-serving and unverifiable. The tribunal, however, observed that the assessee had provided corroborative evidence, including agricultural income accounts, sales bills, land records, and cash book, along with a bank withdrawal. The tribunal found that the assessee had established the source of the cash deposit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to 5% of the total purchases, noting consistency with prior rulings. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as additions were made on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's largely non-responsive and non-compliant attitude throughout the proceedings, including before the CIT(A) even after the case was set aside by the ITAT. Despite this, in the interest of justice and considering the substantial additions and the assessee's attempt to file additional evidence, the Tribunal set aside the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file additional details and supporting documents. The Tribunal cautioned that if the assessee continued to be non-compliant, the CIT(A) could pass appropriate orders based on available material. A cost of Rs. 10,000 for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 10,000 for AY 2014-15 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, for the restoration of the appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's largely non-responsive and non-compliant attitude throughout the proceedings, including before the CIT(A) even after the case was set aside by the ITAT. Despite this, in the interest of justice and considering the substantial additions and the assessee's attempt to file additional evidence, the Tribunal set aside the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file additional details and supporting documents. The Tribunal cautioned that if the assessee continued to be non-compliant, the CIT(A) could pass appropriate orders based on available material. A cost of Rs. 10,000 for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 10,000 for AY 2014-15 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, for the restoration of the appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's largely non-responsive and non-compliant attitude throughout the proceedings, including before the CIT(A) even after the case was set aside by the ITAT. Despite this, in the interest of justice and considering the substantial additions and the assessee's attempt to file additional evidence, the Tribunal set aside the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file additional details and supporting documents. The Tribunal cautioned that if the assessee continued to be non-compliant, the CIT(A) could pass appropriate orders based on available material. A cost of Rs. 10,000 for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 10,000 for AY 2014-15 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, for the restoration of the appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was valid as the purchase consideration was less than the stamp duty value. However, the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained money was deleted as it was duly reflected in the books of accounts and was also returned.
The Tribunal held that the explanation of the appellant regarding the nature and source of investment of Rs. 44,00,000/- from M/s Jaisal Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd. is accepted. The investors from C.N. Shukadia (HUF) and Shardaben Shukadia are genuine investors, being family members of a director and regular income tax filers.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was negligent in complying with procedures before the AO and CIT(A). However, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/-. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the introduction of capital by partners cannot be taxed in the hands of the firm if the sources are explained. The assessee had submitted sufficient documentary evidence, which the AO failed to rebut with any tangible material. The AO should have inquired with the lenders directly if there were doubts.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the evidence and submissions provided by the assessee, particularly regarding his business activities and the explanation for the cash deposits. The Tribunal found this approach unreasonable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that it was due to the inadvertence of the tax consultant appointed by the assessee. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reason for the delay, which was not checking emails regularly and thus being unaware of the demand, did not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation. The conduct of the assessee was deemed to be grossly negligent. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeals to be unreasonable, especially since the CIT(A) did not doubt the genuineness of the evidence furnished. The ITAT restored both appeals to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, instructing the AO to properly consider all details and evidence produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence for the cash deposits, which were explained as arising from cash sales and direct deposits by debtors. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh inquiry was not justified.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal due to the approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The request for withdrawal was allowed.