Loading ITAT cases…
55 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) to uphold the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT held that since the Pr. Commissioner's order, which formed the basis for the AO's consequential order, was quashed, the AO's order could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the AO's order was upheld.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the issuance of a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision for recall if the certificate is later withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had obtained jewel loans totaling Rs. 3,00,000/- from Syndicate Bank prior to the property purchase. Therefore, the source of funds was adequately explained, and the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence in not providing details to the AO but, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C are unsustainable without incriminating material found belonging to the assessee. Since no such material was found, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to serious health problems and family disputes. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the practice of paying withheld price, which could be in cash, kind, or equity shares, is consistent with the company's Articles of Association and relevant statutory provisions for producer companies. The CIT(A) had previously deleted the addition based on these grounds.
The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities due to COVID-19. Therefore, it granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. Following principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to file an affidavit for condonation of delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for adjudication on merits after considering the delay.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the scope of assessment. It held that the disallowance of Section 10A exemption was not justified as the assessee had provided evidence of software development and export activities.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the scope of assessment. It held that the disallowance of Section 10A exemption was not justified as the assessee's claim was based on its registration as a software development unit. The Tribunal also ruled that outstanding balances related to H1B visa processing fees should not be treated as income as they represented liabilities to be refunded.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the scope of assessment. It held that the disallowance of Section 10A exemption was not justified as the assessee's claim was based on its registration as a software development unit. The Tribunal also ruled that outstanding balances related to H1B visa processing fees should not be treated as income as they represented liabilities to be refunded.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the scope of assessment. It held that the disallowance of Section 10A exemption was not justified as the assessee's claim was based on its registration as a software development unit. The Tribunal also ruled that outstanding balances related to H1B visa processing fees should not be treated as income as they represented liabilities to be refunded.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the scope of assessment. It held that the disallowance of Section 10A exemption was not justified as the assessee had provided evidence of software development and export activities.
The Tribunal noted that once Form No. 3 is issued, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the scope of assessment. It held that the disallowance of Section 10A exemption was not justified as the assessee's claim was based on its registration as a software development unit. The Tribunal also ruled that outstanding balances related to H1B visa processing fees should not be treated as income as they represented liabilities to be refunded.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the scope of assessment. It held that the disallowance of Section 10A exemption was not justified as the assessee's claim was based on its registration as a software development unit. The Tribunal also ruled that outstanding balances related to H1B visa processing fees should not be treated as income as they represented liabilities to be refunded.
The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate is withdrawn later.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had called for explanations and examined the issues before making a conscious decision to estimate income on total turnover. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's revision under Section 263, based on a difference of opinion, was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that if ESI and PF contributions are remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not short-admitted receipts from BCCI, as the amounts credited to the Income & Expenditure account and Balance Sheet tallied with Form 26AS. It also found that even if infrastructure subsidy was treated as income, the application for charitable purposes exceeded the income, making it eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that taxing the entire unaccounted receipts as income was unjustified given the evidence of unaccounted expenditure. It upheld the CIT(A)'s view that an estimation of 30% of undisclosed receipts as income was reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was valid as the assessee had accepted additional income in a statement recorded under section 132(4). The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding its activities were not commercial. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding its activities were not commercial. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding its activities were not commercial. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted the Revenue's submission that the appeals were numbered twice and that no adjudication was required. Based on the Revenue's request, the appeals were treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding its activities were not commercial. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding its activities were not commercial. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not commercial and were in line with its objects. It relied on a previous ITAT order that restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order had restored the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, finding that its activities were not commercial. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted that upon issuance of Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a provision to recall the order if the certificate is later withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most appropriate method for both purchase and sale transactions. It directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to adopt CUP and delete the additions made by the AO/TPO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had furnished necessary details during remand proceedings, and the AO had not made any adverse comments. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits in a bank pass book or bank statement cannot be considered as 'books of account' maintained by the assessee for the purpose of Section 68. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to sums credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee. A bank passbook or bank statement cannot be considered as a book maintained by the assessee for the purposes of Section 68. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 based solely on bank deposits is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the death of the Managing Director/Karta constituted a reasonable cause for accepting cash deposits, as it prevented normal banking operations. The Tribunal also found that the cash receipts were trade transactions, not unaccounted income.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the transactions were business-related and that the assessee did not derive any direct or indirect benefit, following its own previous order on identical facts for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO did not properly consider the available sources of funds, including opening cash balance and bank withdrawals. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee had sufficient cash to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB can only be invoked if a search under Section 132 has been initiated. Since no search was conducted in the assessee's case, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide a basis for determining fair remuneration and that the revenue failed to prove the payment was excessive or a colorable device. The selection of the case for scrutiny was also beyond the AO's limited scope.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was valid as the assessee had accepted additional income in a statement recorded under section 132(4). The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's intention was to construct a residential unit, and the development agreement did not constitute a violation of Section 54F. The Tribunal found that the entire transaction was completed within the time frame specified by the Act, and the initial shed was not a residential house.
The Tribunal held that taxing the entire unaccounted receipts as income was unjustified given the evidence of unaccounted expenditure. It upheld the CIT(A)'s view that an estimation of 30% of undisclosed receipts as income was reasonable.
The Tribunal noted the Revenue's submission that the appeals were numbered twice and that no adjudication was required. Based on the Revenue's request, the appeals were treated as withdrawn.