Loading ITAT cases…
178 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal, considering the audited income and expenditure statement and the Assessing Officer's earlier remand report, decided to estimate the profit at 25% of the gross receipts instead of the full amount.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was in accordance with law. It confirmed that employee contributions to PF/ESI are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va) if not deposited within the prescribed due dates as per the respective Acts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to be taxed only on the net income received from the LIC policy, in line with CBDT Circular No. 7/2003. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the taxable amount.
The Tribunal held that taxing the same interest income again in the impugned year, solely because TDS was deducted on the entire amount on a cash basis, would amount to double taxation. The assessee had already offered the income on an accrual basis in previous years.
The Tribunal, following its own prior ruling for the assessee's own case in AY 2013-14, held that depreciation at 50% was justified on the block of assets. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim based on the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 are invalid if initiated before the expiry of the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments to support this view.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 are invalid if initiated before the expiry of the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments to support this view.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable. For Gruh Finance, TDS was duly deducted and paid, as evidenced by challans and Form 16A. For Citi Finance, the payee had offered the interest income in its return, satisfying the condition under Section 201(1).
The Tribunal held that the interest and gains earned during the pre-commencement period were inextricably linked to the setting up of the capital structure of the assessee company. Therefore, they were in the nature of capital receipts and not taxable as income from other sources or short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the premise of bogus LTCG was incorrect. The entire transaction value could not be LTCG, and in fact, it resulted in a Short Term Capital Loss. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence, considering the potential for injustice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. It was based on suspicion and general information about entry operators, without cogent material linking the assessee to any scam.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be given to the assessee as per Section 199 of the IT Act and Rule 37BA of the IT Rules, following jurisdictional High Court judgments. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that debatable issues should not be adjusted under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Following a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year, both disallowances were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 17,27,000/- as unexplained cash credit, finding the gift deed lacked genuineness due to the donor's non-appearance and unexplained delay between land sale and gift. The addition for excess rent was also confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified beyond the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, citing precedents where sufficient own funds were available. The deduction under Section 80IA(4) was also allowed, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed the return for the relevant assessment year within the prescribed time. Therefore, the disallowance of the set off of brought forward loss was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the entire cash deposits cannot be added as income. It held that the peak credit method should be applied to compute the profit from unaccounted cash sales. The matter was remanded to the AO for this specific purpose.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly treated open outstanding F&O contracts as closing/opening stock. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that such open contracts do not represent stock and that losses from marking-to-market are allowable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the exact limb of the default. Furthermore, the fact that the assessee had filed a return of income was not properly verified by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the exact limb of the default. Furthermore, the fact that the assessee had filed a return of income was not properly verified by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10,75,000/- from Shri Ramesh Parmar was not justified as the transactions, though involving cash, occurred within a short span and the revenue could not establish alternative usage of the withdrawn amounts. The appeal regarding this amount was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial landholdings and had provided evidence of agricultural produce, a bank loan against this produce, and subsequent sales. The Tribunal concluded that the source of the deposits was substantiated and the addition was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the exact limb of the default. Furthermore, the fact that the assessee had filed a return of income was not properly verified by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order allowing the deduction was not erroneous as it was based on one of the possible views, supported by the Gujarat High Court's judgment. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the exact limb of the default. Furthermore, the fact that the assessee had filed a return of income was not properly verified by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to choose any assessment year within the 15-year block as its initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80IA. It further held that unabsorbed depreciation and business losses from years prior to the chosen initial assessment year, which have already been set off against other income, cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible business.