Loading ITAT cases…
135 tribunal orders from the Varanasi bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 135 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the AO had complied with the provisions of Section 144 for making a best judgment assessment when the assessee failed to file a return or comply with notices. It was also held that a notice under Section 143(2) was not required in such circumstances, and the reassessment order was valid.
The Tribunal held that the AO had complied with the provisions of Section 144 for making a best judgment assessment when the assessee failed to file a return or comply with notices. It was also held that a notice under Section 143(2) was not required in such circumstances, and the reassessment order was valid.
The Tribunal found that the AO erred in calculating the differential stock value and that some additions were double. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to adequately explain the stock differences.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to produce supporting evidence for the source of the deposit.
The Tribunal held that the AO was obligated to refer the property valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) when the assessee objected to the stamp duty valuation, especially when there was a significant discrepancy between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value. The authorities below failed to consider the assessee's valuation report and the steep increase in stamp duty valuation within a short period.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was framed by an officer of incompetent jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. The alleged order under section 127 was also considered non-existent as it was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was framed by an officer of incompetent jurisdiction, making it void ab initio. The alleged order under section 127 was also considered non-existent as it was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was correct in rejecting the application for the assessment year 2018-19 due to the delay, as the power to condone delay lies with the CBDT. However, the Tribunal noted that if the application was also for subsequent years, the CIT(E) should have considered those parts on merits.
The Tribunal held that while advancing loans to sister concerns for commercial expediency can allow interest deduction, the assessee failed to provide evidence of such expediency. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision to reject the registration application. The assessee failed to satisfy the genuineness of its activities and charitable nature of its objects, and engaged in transactions with related parties.
The Tribunal held that while advancing loans to sister concerns for commercial expediency can allow interest deduction, the assessee failed to provide evidence of such expediency. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized considering the assessee's reasonable cause for non-compliance, especially in light of Section 273B, and directed that all evidence be admitted and adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions of Section 68 regarding the identity, creditworthiness of creditors, and genuineness of transactions for the Rs. 54 lacs advance. However, for the Rs. 68,000/- advances, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim of providing finishing work.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee provided additional evidence. The AO is to verify the genuineness of the advertisement expenses and consider the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty without considering that the additions on which the penalty was levied were already set aside. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation for loans without proper verification, especially when affidavits and supporting documents were provided. The addition made on account of unexplained loans was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the surrender of income during appellate proceedings, when not disclosed earlier, constitutes concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under section 12A in 2021. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application, taking into account the subsequent registration and allowing the assessee to produce relevant records.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order as it was passed for non-prosecution without deciding the grounds on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer, after the revision order, conducted an inquiry and allowed the assessee's claim based on submitted documents. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte as the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement did not cover the issue in the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's share of PF/ESI is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 36(1)(va). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's share of PF/ESI is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, the assessee is entitled to a deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective. The case was remanded for verification of deposit challans.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's share of PF/ESI is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 36(1)(va). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that the dispute settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme related to the original assessment order, not the reassessment order under appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits.
The Tribunal held that the claim under section 10(23C)(iiiad) was a bonafide mistake, and the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 11. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify the claim under section 11 and 12.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against a penalty order under Section 271FA lies with the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(1)(q) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed directly before the ITAT was not maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that if the entire billed amount was offered to tax and the 5% was merely an accounting error of setting off receivables against creditors, it would not prejudice the revenue. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for limited verification.
The Tribunal held that if employee PF/ESI contributions are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(va). Amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the assessee's records. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee settled the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a charitable entity engaged in the advancement of objects of general public utility, specifically town planning and urban development. The Tribunal found that the assessee has no profit motive and its activities are not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in the advancement of objects of general public utility, with the predominant object of town planning and urban development. It was further held that the assessee is not engaged in any trade, commerce, or business and is eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's predominant object was town planning and urban development, which falls under the advancement of objects of general public utility. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not engaged in any trade, commerce, or business and was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's predominant object was town planning and urban development, which falls under the advancement of objects of general public utility. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not engaged in any trade, commerce, or business and was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and the Form No. 5 issued under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. As the tax dispute for the assessment year was settled under the scheme, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. The appellate order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh determination.