Loading ITAT cases…
84 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that recognizing revenue on sale basis, as per Accounting Standard-9 and ICAI guidance, and offering profits to tax in earlier years means the advances cannot be taxed again, preventing double taxation. It was noted that Section 43CB is applicable from 01-04-2017.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished PAN details for the 19 parties for whom additions were confirmed. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee.
The CIT(A) concurred with the assessee's contention that Shri Maa Bhagwati Enterprises was not a dummy concern, relying on an order from the Hon'ble IBC. The IBC accepted the transactions and a Net Profit Rate of 4%. The CIT(A) applied the same rate to restrict the addition.
The CIT(A) found that the undisclosed income in the hands of Shri Maa Bhagwati Enterprises was already taxed by the Settlement Board and therefore, could not be added again in the hands of the assessee to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to establish the primary ingredients of Section 68, including identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The onus was on the AO to controvert these findings, which he failed to do with concrete evidence.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions by holding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the AO's addition was based on presumptions rather than evidence. For the second loan, the tribunal noted that the genuineness of the entity was accepted by the Interim Board of Settlement.
The Tribunal held that once the books of accounts are rejected and income is estimated, no separate addition for items like sundry creditors, opening stock, and cash deposits, which are part of the business and reflected in the rejected books, can be made. Such additions would amount to double taxation. The case laws cited by the CIT(A) support this view.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts, which were duly audited. The deposits were made from available cash balance, and VAT returns reflected the sales. No defects were pointed out in the books, and the addition was based on statistical inferences. To ensure justice and prevent revenue leakage, a lump sum addition was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts, which were audited and not rejected by the AO. The cash deposits were recorded and sourced from business activities. However, considering the peculiar facts and potential revenue leakage, a lump sum addition of Rs. 20 Lacs was sustained.
The Tribunal found that the issue of interest disallowance was covered by a previous decision in the assessee's favor. For capital gains, the addition of Rs. 0.58 Lacs was deleted as the difference in value was less than 5%, but the addition of Rs. 0.25 Lacs was confirmed.
The Tribunal found the AO's methodology of calculating ALV at 7% of investment to be erroneous, as it should be based on the reasonably expected rent. The AO also failed to grant vacancy allowance and did not ascertain the expected rental value. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the impugned addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted a plausible view based on the assessee's replies and evidence. The Pr. CIT could not substitute their own opinion for the AO's view unless it was shown to be perverse. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had passed away and was represented by her daughter. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for the legal representative to present the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal held that the reopening approval was granted in a mechanical manner, without proper application of mind by the approving authority. This was evidenced by the form used for recording reasons, which showed a non-application of mind similar to cases where reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared other incomes as business income and had provided an affidavit and ledger extract of agricultural receipts. Considering the nature of the business and the absence of contrary evidence, the assessee's explanation was accepted. Since the assessee had already shown presumptive income under section 44AD, the separate addition of Rs. 11 Lacs was not justified.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity for a hearing before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that additions based on loose sheets already disclosed by the assessee amounted to double taxation. It also ruled that profit from agricultural land sale in rural areas is not taxable capital gains and allowed concessions for jewellery based on CBDT instructions.
The Assessing Officer erred in not allowing intra-head adjustment for capital gains and losses, which is permissible under the law. The deduction under section 54F was also incorrectly restricted by the CPC.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A became effective from 01-06-2015 and had prospective effect. Therefore, no fee under Section 234E could be levied for TDS deducted prior to 01-06-2015.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the admission of the appeal and adjudicate on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books of accounts and made additions based on credit notes and cash discounts, alleging they were not accounted for. The assessee's representative argued that these credit notes were fully allowed amongst dealers, resulting in a net zero figure and were not routed through the Profit & Loss Account as per their consistent accounting policy. This benefit was passed on to customers.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view by accepting the assessee's explanation and the sale consideration. The Pr. CIT could not substitute his own opinion for that of the AO unless the AO's view was perverse. The court also relied on a High Court judgment stating that guideline value is only an indicator.
The Tribunal held that the receipt of Rs.15 Lacs by the assessee's wife, as evidenced by an Agreement to Sale, is undisputed. The fact that the agreement was not registered or was subsequently cancelled does not alter the receipt of funds. The remaining amount of Rs.2.13 Lacs was also considered nominal. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to confirm the impugned addition.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found to indicate unaccounted income of the magnitude alleged. The statement of the partner, given under Section 132(4), was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when there was no other corroborating material. The Tribunal decided to estimate the income based on the net profit rate of 2.58% declared on regular sales.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The appellant requested to withdraw the appeal. The Learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal request.
The tribunal considered the appellant's written request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied due to technical aberrations and that provisions relating to condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not granting condonation of delay and that it was not clear whether the assessee had properly applied for condonation. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee a last opportunity to make submissions before the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the appeals were pending for hearing and the appellant had applied for withdrawal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the appellant's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal noted that the appeals were pending for hearing and the appellant had applied for withdrawal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.