Loading ITAT cases…
252 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the sale consideration was likely subsumed in the total revenue recognized. However, due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient reconciliation, the issue was remitted back to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 226 days, citing the assessee's status as a housewife unaware of IT procedures and relying on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantive justice over technical flaws. The appeal was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that even in cases of non-prosecution, the CIT(A) should decide the appeal based on available material. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the validity of the notice u/s 148 as it was pending before the Hon'ble High Courts. The appeal was dismissed as a result.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient reasons for not appearing before the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had not considered the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its deposits with another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be bonafide and beyond the assessees' control. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment notices as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be bonafide and beyond the assessees' control. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment notices as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee, allowing the benefit of telescoping for unaccounted expenditure. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the difference in depreciation rate was a debatable issue, especially since the High Court admitted a substantial question of law. Similarly, the disallowance of business expenditure was based on a difference of opinion, not concealment. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were invalid because the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act, as more than three years had lapsed from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the Assessing Officer obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which was not the specified authority as per Section 151(ii) for reassessments initiated after three years. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were invalid because the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act, as more than three years had lapsed from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the difference in depreciation rate was a debatable issue, especially since the High Court admitted a substantial question of law. Similarly, the disallowance of business expenditure was based on a difference of opinion, not concealment. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The reasons provided were considered vague, general, and indicative of negligence, thus not warranting condonation.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the difference in depreciation rate was a debatable issue, especially since the High Court admitted a substantial question of law. Similarly, the disallowance of business expenditure was based on a difference of opinion, not concealment. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be bonafide and beyond the assessees' control. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment notices as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued were invalid due to being barred by limitation and lacking valid approval from the competent authority. Consequently, the reassessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed period under the unamended provisions. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. Consequently, the additions made by taxing this compensation were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were invalid because the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act, as more than three years had lapsed from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 453 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee was pursuing alternate remedies. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for deciding on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's genuine personal difficulties and the sympathetic approach adopted by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in similar cases. The Tribunal also decided to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that payment to HPCL cannot be in cash and the discrepancy requires further investigation. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the differences and reconsideration of the addition on account of sundry creditors.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the bank account was not declared in the return. However, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of cash deposits from property sales and withdrawals from a joint account.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable and bonafide cause for the delay in filing the audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271B was not justified.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be bonafide, noting proximity between the dates of deposit and withdrawal from the wife's account. Since new evidence was filed before the Tribunal, the matter was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its deposits with another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, especially when the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for exemption, referencing a Kerala High Court decision. However, due to the fresh nature of the claim and lack of readily available facts, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.