Loading ITAT cases…
48 orders · Page 1 of 1
The CIT(A) admitted the TRC as additional evidence and held that salary income earned for services rendered abroad is exempt from tax in India as per the India-Netherlands tax treaty. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal held that orders imposing penalty under Section 271FA are appealable before the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(q) of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s dismissal orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is called for in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court and its own previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is called for in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court and its own previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. The additional evidence filed did not sufficiently prove the transactions, and the assessee's explanations for cash deposits and withdrawals were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. The additional evidence filed did not sufficiently prove the transactions, and the assessee's explanations for cash deposits and withdrawals were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. The additional evidence filed did not sufficiently prove the transactions, and the assessee's explanations for cash deposits and withdrawals were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. The additional evidence filed did not sufficiently prove the transactions, and the assessee's explanations for cash deposits and withdrawals were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of loan creditors. The additional evidence filed did not sufficiently prove the transactions, and the assessee's explanations for cash deposits and withdrawals were not accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's application of income exceeded 85% and it was registered under Section 12AA, filing Form 10B was not necessary for claiming exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 could not exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was set aside by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 could not exist. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that orders imposing penalty under Section 271FA are appealable before the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(q) of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s dismissal orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that orders imposing penalty under Section 271FA are appealable before the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(q) of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s dismissal orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file the applications electronically, considering the delay in receiving the notice. The original date of application (05.03.2018) was to be reckoned for grant of registration and approval.
The Tribunal agreed with the Pr.CIT that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry regarding the allowability of interest expenditure and chit loss.
The Authorized Representative for the assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had given opportunities, the appeal should have been decided on merits even if ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the cross objections filed by the assessee also became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file the applications electronically, considering the delay in receiving the notice. The original date of application (05.03.2018) was to be reckoned for grant of registration and approval.
The Tribunal held that since the application was filed before the due date of September 30th of the relevant assessment year, the exemption should be granted from that year. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving that the funds received were indeed transferred to the society and used for the stated purpose. Therefore, the addition of these amounts to the assessee's income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that 70% water spread area is reasonable for estimating pisciculture income, aligning with CBDT instructions. However, the estimation of income at Rs. 15,000/- per acre was upheld. The addition for unexplained cash deposits was confirmed due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) can pass ex-parte orders, they must still examine the grounds and decide the appeal on merits, not just dismiss it for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed filed the appeal electronically as directed, and this fact was missed by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As the Departmental Representative raised no objection, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. As the Departmental Representative raised no objection, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the details of gifts, including confirmation letters and sources, before completing the assessment. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order setting aside the AO's assessment was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the interest expenditure as a deduction. Regarding the addition for gold and jewellery, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of ancestral inheritance reasonable and set aside the addition. Similarly, for the 'on money' received from a flat sale, the Tribunal found no evidence and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the interest expenditure as a deduction, as the investment was made for purposes other than earning income. Regarding jewellery and silver articles, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of ancestral inheritance to be reasonable and set aside the additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a commission agent, could not be compared to a trading company. Therefore, the estimated profit of 4% was restricted to 2%, aligning with a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a commission agent, could not be compared to a trading company. Therefore, the estimated profit of 4% was restricted to 2%, aligning with a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction for liquidated damages as the issue was settled in favour of the assessee by a Special Bench and the High Court. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for excess depreciation, finding no material to controvert the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the interest expenditure as a deduction. Regarding the addition for gold and jewellery, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of ancestral inheritance reasonable and set aside the addition. Similarly, for the 'on money' received from a flat sale, the Tribunal found no evidence and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the advance was for a genuine business purpose, intended for the benefit of the company, and not a deemed dividend. The fact that the construction was not commenced due to the company incurring losses and the assessee's subsequent refund of the amount supported this view.
The Tribunal held that merely initiating the process for conversion of land does not make it a non-agricultural asset. Since the conversion permission was obtained by the purchaser after the sale, the land continued to be agricultural land in the hands of the assessee.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issues back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction for liquidated damages as it was settled in favour of the assessee by a Special Bench and the High Court. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of excess depreciation, agreeing that the cars were commercial vehicles and depreciation was correctly claimed.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding additions made without reference to seized material. It directed the AO to allow telescopic benefit from admitted additional income towards investments in gold, jewellery, and cash credits, setting aside the additions sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had supplied materials exceeding the contract payment, and after excluding material supply, the TDS liability was Nil. Therefore, no penalty was leviable under Section 271C.