Loading ITAT cases…
48 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's additions based solely on the Managing Director's statement during survey, without further corroboration, were not sustainable. The Tribunal also considered the issue of disallowances related to VAT and Provident Fund contributions.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of agricultural income was not properly reasoned and that the repayment of an agricultural loan of Rs. 11,26,457/- should be considered explained. The balance Rs. 5,20,000/- was considered as commission income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's additions based solely on the Managing Director's statement during survey, without further corroboration, were not sustainable. The Tribunal also considered the issue of disallowances related to VAT and Provident Fund contributions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee commission is an international transaction and should be charged at 0.50% on the guarantee amount, following its own previous decisions for the assessee. The addition made by the TPO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's additions based solely on the Managing Director's statement during survey, without further corroboration, were not sustainable. The Tribunal also considered the issue of disallowances related to VAT and Provident Fund contributions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction of 10% for self-supervision and 15% for material cost difference from the DVO's valuation. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of 15% towards the difference in material cost and 10% towards self-supervision charges from the DVO's valuation. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence from 20 donors. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-submission reasonable and treated all donations as capital receipts.
The Tribunal found that the sale deed and bank statements of the Director clearly indicated that the payments for the property were made by the Director, not the company. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a commission agent, is eligible for credit of the entire TDS deducted at source, as per CBDT Circular No. 452. The gross sale proceeds should not be treated as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the amount received from DSIR was a soft loan, not a grant-in-aid, based on similar past transactions and confirmation from the Ministry. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the weighted deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not warranted as the assessee had explained that the investment was made from consultancy services and voluntary retirement benefits (PF and Gratuity). The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted additions related to unsecured loans and insurance payments credited to capital, finding the sources explained. However, it sustained additions related to unexplained capital introduced in firms and gifts received from the father's HUF, deeming them not to fall within the scope of the law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's valuation of steam was insufficient as it did not consider stores, spares, and other overheads. The Tribunal found the assessee's valuation of Rs. 1500 per ton to be reasonable, thus allowing the deduction under Section 80IA.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on deposits made from surplus funds derived from eligible business activities is attributable to the business of the society and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court was followed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's valuation of steam was insufficient as it did not consider stores, spares, and other overheads. The Tribunal found the assessee's valuation of Rs. 1500 per ton to be reasonable, thus allowing the deduction under Section 80IA.
The Tribunal held that the amount received from DSIR was a soft loan, not a grant-in-aid, based on similar past transactions and confirmation from the Ministry. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the weighted deduction.
The Tribunal held that the lease was to unrelated third parties based on commercial considerations, and a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, which relied on a coordinate bench decision, was applicable. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from this precedent.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had already disallowed the depreciation claim during the assessment, the CIT(E)'s order under Section 263 was not justified. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), attributing it to the accountant's negligence. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had already disallowed the depreciation claim during the assessment, the CIT(E)'s order under Section 263 was not justified. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 351 days, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity and the principles of natural justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained his agricultural income and the source of cash deposits from nursery sales. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipt was deposited into the bank account, demonstrating the genuineness of the transaction. The explanation for receiving cash constituted a 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case, considering the principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are met. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illiteracy and lack of knowledge of tax proceedings. It held that principles of natural justice were violated by the ex-parte dismissal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy and lack of knowledge of tax proceedings. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)-NFAC to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that a technical error in not filling a specific column in the return of income should not lead to disallowance. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed an inadmissible portion and declared the remuneration in partners' returns, complying with Section 40(b).
The Tribunal held that a technical error in not filling a specific column in the return of income should not lead to disallowance. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed an inadmissible portion and declared the remuneration in partners' returns, complying with Section 40(b).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits of the case, especially given the assessee's submission about the members being uneducated farmers and the notice being served late.
The Tribunal held that a technical error in not filling a specific column in the return of income should not lead to disallowance. The assessee had voluntarily disallowed an inadmissible portion and declared the remuneration in partners' returns, complying with Section 40(b).
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC due to the pandemic. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the cash payment was made by the successful bidder in the auction, not by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee cannot be penalized for a cash deposit made by a third party.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health. It held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte, and therefore, remitted the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and decided to provide one final opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal clarified that the correct dates for the hearing and pronouncement of the order in ITA No. 320/Viz/2024 (AY 2015-16) are 30/09/2024, not 30/09/2027.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's properties were taken over by M/s. Narayana Educational Society, and evidence suggested these receipts were accounted for by the latter. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Specified Bank Notes could be measured in monetary terms until December 31, 2016, and therefore, their receipt from cash sales was not illegal. Consequently, the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's injury and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a commission agent (kaccha arahtia), is eligible for credit of the entire TDS deducted at source as per CBDT Circular No. 452/1986. The gross sale proceeds should not be treated as the assessee's income for TDS credit calculation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a commission agent (kaccha arahtia), is eligible for credit of the entire TDS deducted at source as per CBDT Circular No. 452/1986. The gross sale proceeds should not be treated as the assessee's income for TDS credit calculation.
The Tribunal held that failure to pay tax under IDS does not change the character of the income declared. The CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to recompute the income under the head capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid the entire sale consideration and taken possession of the new property within the stipulated time, even though registration was delayed. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F was allowable.