Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found merit in allowing the assessee to present additional evidence for the bogus purchases issue and remanded it for fresh adjudication. For the household expenses, the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding the assessee's explanation and family income to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had issued cheques for the bonus payment before the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, the deduction under Section 43B was allowed.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lacs are to be dismissed. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the Gujarat High Court's decision in the GSRTC case had attained finality and there was no stay from the Apex Court on similar issues.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to PF contribution disallowance, citing jurisdictional High Court precedent. For leave encashment, the tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, as a substantial question of law was admitted by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings are not completed until the Tribunal's order is given effect to. Therefore, the assessee should be allowed to submit Form No. 10, and the Assessing Officer should pass orders considering it as if filed at the outset.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issue was identical to previous years where the Revenue had not appealed or where its appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and the ruling of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Limited.
The Tribunal held that income derived from trust property should be determined on commercial principles, allowing for the adjustment of earlier year's expenses against subsequent year's income. The CIT(A)'s order to allow the set-off of carried forward deficit was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income. Since the assessee had already suo moto disallowed an amount greater than the dividend income, the addition made by the AO was not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a real estate developer and not a mere contractor, was governed by AS-9, not AS-7. It was also noted that the income was ultimately offered and assessed in a later assessment year, making the AO's action revenue neutral.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanations during appellate and remand proceedings. The cross-objection was withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed expenses with any documentary evidence, even in penalty proceedings. The co-ordinate bench's findings in quantum proceedings regarding the lack of evidence were found to be squarely applicable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. However, it was expedient to restore the issue of jurisdiction and the merits of the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo examination.
The Tribunal held that the issue of jurisdiction, even if not raised before lower authorities, can be considered for the first time. The Tribunal remitted the issue of jurisdiction and the merits of the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo examination.