Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of soil conservation expenses was unjustified and restricted it to Rs. 5 lacs. For the issue of interest on farmers' loans, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision and allowed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of soil conservation expenses was unjustified and restricted it to Rs. 5 lacs. For the issue of interest on farmers' loans, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision and allowed the appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding commission expenses, following its own precedent from the preceding year. For R&D expenses, the Tribunal held that prior to the 2016 amendment, the law did not require approval of the quantum of expenditure, only the facility itself.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 1% of gross turnover, finding it reasonable and justified given the assessee's past history, significant bad debts written off, and industry profit margins. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the jurisdictional High Court's ruling relied upon by the Revenue.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO had no reasonable basis to treat the transaction as an adventure in the nature of trade. The solitary nature of the transaction, holding the land as an investment for 8 years without any business activity, supported treating the profit as capital gain.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to disallow the foreign exchange fluctuation was an inadvertent mistake, not a concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Since the assessee offered the disallowance suo motu upon realizing the error, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in invoking Section 263 as there was no basis to find the assessment order erroneous. The assessee's alternative claim for exemption under Section 11, considering application to capital purposes, was also not properly considered by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the alternative claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). However, the disallowance of advertisement and travelling expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be applied for computing book profit under Section 115JB. However, a disallowance of 1% of exempted income was directed to be made independently under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the alternative claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). However, the disallowance of advertisement and travelling expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the fact that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, with the tax arrears paid and the dispute finally resolved.
The Tribunal held that a difference in stock valuation, even if confirmed by the AO and CIT(A), does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed as there was no conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, consistently upholding the principle of mutuality. Therefore, the deletions made by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence was produced for the first time and that these documents were not filed before the lower authorities due to family disputes. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal under the "Vivad se Vishwas" Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal under the "Vivad se Vishwas" Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that a difference in stock valuation, even if confirmed by the AO and CIT(A), does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed as there was no conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending as the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the significant delay were not convincing or sufficient. They noted the assessee's lack of reasonable diligence and the extended period of inaction.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence was produced for the first time and that these documents were not filed before the lower authorities due to family disputes. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was considered genuine. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, consistently upholding the principle of mutuality. Therefore, the deletions made by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 when the issue was already examined by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. Since the Assessing Officer was aware of the claim and had verified it, the revisionary power under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending and accordingly dismissed it. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee's claim of timely payment required verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after verifying the payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the entire deduction under Section 80IB(10) cannot be denied merely because one unit exceeded the 1500 sq ft limit. Proportionate deduction is allowable for units that meet the criteria.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the disallowance of deduction. It relied on previous judgments where similar claims were allowed, emphasizing the lack of specific evidence against the assessee and the donee not being cross-examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for capital gains if the land was agricultural at the time of sale, even if the buyer intended to convert it. The AO had already conducted a detailed inquiry during assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were insufficient and based on 'borrowed information' without the AO applying his own mind. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal. The dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, with tax arrears paid and the dispute finally resolved.
The Tribunal held that a partner's contribution to a firm cannot be construed as a loan between two separate persons, as per partnership law and ITAT precedents. Therefore, Section 269SS was not attracted, and the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.
The tribunal considered the assessee's application and submissions. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee availing the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO's reasons for reopening were not validly recorded and the basis for reopening ceased to survive. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO's reasons for reopening were not validly recorded and the basis for reopening ceased to survive. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's ground regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of delay first. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the penalty merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details for the cash credits, and the AO erred in invoking the proviso to Section 68 which is not applicable to loans. Regarding technology transfer, the Tribunal found the expenditure to be capital in nature and supported by evidence like customs documents and TDS payment.
The Tribunal held that no penalty is leviable on income bona fide disclosed during scrutiny proceedings, even if later accepted as undisclosed. For estimated additions, penalty is not leviable as per jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV Scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the VSV Scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request and the Revenue's no objection. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including his passport and visa, to demonstrate that he had immigrated to the USA and was unaware of the notices. The CIT(A) had failed to address these contentions properly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to explain the discrepancy in names. The assessee presented evidence to demonstrate that the different names referred to the same trust.
The Tribunal held that the broker's statements and bank account details, which were provided by the assessee and not doubted by the revenue, should have been examined by the revenue authorities. Without making due inquiries, the addition made by estimating profits was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the quantum proceedings were restored back to the Assessing Officer by a higher tribunal, the penalty did not survive. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of agricultural income with documentary evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not maintain proper books of accounts and dismissed the appeal.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without proper reasoning and without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.