Loading ITAT cases…
81 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption under Section 11 for unexplained unsecured loans, as income taxed under Section 68 cannot be treated as income eligible for such exemption. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) did not adequately address the issue of bogus/fictitious loans.
The ITAT found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of Rs. 9,25,000 (from FDR maturities and bank balance) but failed to substantiate the source of Rs. 5,75,000, which was vaguely attributed to 'regular business receipts'. Therefore, the addition was sustained only for Rs. 5,75,000.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the assessee's age and the request for an opportunity, the ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a proper hearing opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the subsequent assessment as infructuous because the PCIT's order under Section 263, which was the foundation for the subsequent assessment, had been quashed by the ITAT. Therefore, the subsequent assessment could not survive.
The tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the individual contributions of the appellant and his mother to the joint account. The AO is directed to consider the additional evidence, including bank statements, and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring natural justice.
The ITAT held that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that procedural law serves justice. It condoned the 706-day delay, finding the assessee's reasons sufficient, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was based on surmises and conjectures, without sufficient reasoning or affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application, citing the serious health issues of the signatory as a sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) to decide the application on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in treating the cash deposits as unexplained credits under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared cash sales in its books, which were not rejected, and provided supporting documents. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and also a 10-day delay before the ITAT, considering the assessee's charitable activities and the interest of substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with directions for both parties to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption under Section 11 for unexplained unsecured loans, as income taxed under Section 68 cannot be treated as income eligible for such exemption. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) did not adequately address the issue of bogus/fictitious loans.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the importance of natural justice and providing the assessee an opportunity to present submissions and evidence, especially given the high-pitched additions. The CIT(A)'s dismissal without proper consideration of natural justice principles was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the purchases from the non-existent firm were bogus accommodation entries. The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the supplier, despite payments being made through banking channels.
The tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) erred by not first deciding on the condonation of delay and by violating principles of natural justice. The tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The tribunal upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB, stating that once the element of undisclosed income is accepted, the penalty becomes practically automatic. It noted that Section 271AAB does not provide for immunity based on reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the nature and source of the credits, including export documents, sale invoices, bank statements, and details of payments to artists. The addition made by the AO under Section 68 was therefore deleted.
The tribunal found that the cash payments to each director did not exceed Rs. 20,000 on any single day, as they were paid monthly. Therefore, the tribunal concluded there was no violation of Section 40A(3) and directed the deletion of the disallowance.
The ITAT admitted additional evidence from the assessee and, finding that the NFAC had not given independent findings, restored the entire appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The tribunal held that once the income falls within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB, the levy of penalty is automatic. The provisions of Section 273B, which allow for reasonable cause, do not apply to Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied by the lower authorities was upheld.
The tribunal held that once the income falls within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB, the penalty is automatic, as Section 273B (reasonable cause) does not apply to Section 271AAB. Therefore, the levy of penalty was upheld for all assessment years.
The tribunal held that once the income falls within the definition of 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB, the penalty is automatic, as Section 273B (reasonable cause) does not apply to Section 271AAB. Despite the estimated nature of additions and the assessee's health issues, the penalty was upheld.
The tribunal held that 'bhandara expenses' representing food distribution to the needy fall under 'relief of the poor', which is a charitable activity. It found the CIT(A)'s suspicion of religious/cultural flavor to be a surmise and directed the AO to treat these expenses as an application of income for charitable purposes.
The tribunal held that the interest expenditure on the loan, directly linked to the acquisition of virtual digital assets, should be considered part of the cost of acquisition. Since Section 115BBH(2) allows for the deduction of the cost of acquisition, the assessee is entitled to claim the interest as a deduction while computing short-term capital gains.
The tribunal held that the additional evidence was crucial and went to the root of the matter. Given that the assessment was ex-parte, the tribunal restored the entire appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish fresh evidence.
The tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a de novo adjudication, emphasizing the need for a merits-based decision and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The tribunal held that once the income falls within the definition of 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB, the penalty is automatic, as Section 273B (reasonable cause) does not apply to Section 271AAB. Despite the estimated nature of additions and the assessee's health issues, the penalty was upheld.
The tribunal upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB, stating that once the income falls within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per the explanation to Section 271AAB, the penalty becomes automatic. It noted that Section 273B does not provide immunity for penalties under Section 271AAB, even if a reasonable cause is shown.
The tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts but found the AO's estimation of bag quantity and hire charges per bag arbitrary. It directed that the actual quantity of bags and the assessee's declared hire charges per bag be used, while retaining the 25% net profit rate. It also allowed deductions for interest on partners' capital and partners' remuneration.
The tribunal upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB, stating that once the income falls within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per the explanation to Section 271AAB, the penalty becomes automatic. It noted that Section 273B does not provide immunity for penalties under Section 271AAB, even if a reasonable cause is shown.
The tribunal held that the cash seizure occurred on March 30, 2019, which falls under Assessment Year 2019-20. Therefore, no addition could be made for this amount in Assessment Year 2020-21. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts but reduced the estimated net profit to 0.50% of turnover, considering the assessee deals in beer and not liquor, and that payments were received through account payee cheques.