Loading ITAT cases…
30 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as day-to-day collections from movie ticket sales. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were made prior to the demonetization period and were properly explained by the assessee with supporting evidence like cash book entries. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that as the assessee is a commission agent (kaccha arahtia), only the commission charged is to be considered as turnover, not gross sale proceeds. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the entire TDS credit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the case on merits rather than dismissing it ex-parte, and therefore, remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it ex-parte, especially considering the assessee had responded to the AO's notices. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal and that the delay was due to negligence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have considered the explanation for the delay and condoned it, as there was no willful negligence. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that as a commission agent, the assessee's turnover should only include commission, not gross sale proceeds, following a CBDT circular and a previous tribunal decision. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the entire TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest income earned from bank deposits, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The order of the CIT(A) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that APIIC Limited qualified as a 'State Industrial Investment Corporation' under Explanation 4(c) to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance of unpaid interest under Section 43B was justified.
The Tribunal held that APIIC Limited qualified as a 'State Industrial Investment Corporation' under Explanation 4(c) to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance of unpaid interest under Section 43B was justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services case correctly interprets the law, making timely deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI mandatory for claiming deduction. Therefore, belated payments are not allowable.
The Tribunal held that APIIC Limited, being a government company engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial projects, squarely fits the definition of a 'State Industrial Investment Corporation' under Explanation 4(c) of Section 43B. Therefore, the disallowance of unpaid interest was justified.
The Tribunal held that APIIC Limited qualified as a 'State Industrial Investment Corporation' under Explanation 4(c) to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance of unpaid interest under Section 43B was justified.
The Tribunal held that a valid return of income must be filed within the prescribed time to claim deductions under Chapter VI-A, including Section 80P. Since the assessee failed to do so, the deduction was not admissible.
The Tribunal held that as the assessee is a commission agent (kaccha arahtia), only the commission charged should be considered as turnover, not gross sale proceeds. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the entire TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had properly explained the source of cash deposits as being from prior withdrawals. The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not properly appreciated the facts and the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing COVID-19 and the death of their Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal found no willful negligence and condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is valid. The primary contention of the assessee was the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order, citing CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal noted that while the DIN was not embedded in the order itself, an online DIN and document number was generated on the same day (30.03.2022) as the assessment order and intimated to the assessee. The Tribunal found that no manual communication was issued, and therefore, the exceptional circumstances requiring prior approval of the Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax, as outlined in the circular, were not applicable. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT, stating that the issue there was a wrong date in the notice, unlike the present case where DIN was generated electronically on the same day. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's representative did not argue the case on merits or other grounds raised in the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The issue regarding the justification of invoking section 50C was not decided on merits as the assessee's appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of the validity of the assessment order.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, decided to provide one final opportunity based on principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after the assessee submits evidence.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenditure was unethical and violated Indian Medical Council regulations. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow 50% was arbitrary and without valid reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not warranted as the assessee had already offered these amounts to tax under the appropriate heads ('income from other sources' and 'income from house property') in her return of income. Therefore, it was not necessary to declare them again under 'any other items of income'.
The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to prove commercial expediency for interest-free advances to related parties. Since the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, restoring the Assessing Officer's disallowance.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not comply with notices, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the unrectified defects and the non-appearance of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed twice in different assessment years. Since the income was already taxed in AY 2010-11, it cannot be taxed again in AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence and decided the case on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that insufficient opportunity was provided to respond to the penalty show cause notice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate net profit at 5% of the purchase price of stock, following a previous decision. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of unsecured loans back to the AO for further examination.