Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the information available to the AO, pertaining to a later date (March 31, 2014), could not have formed a valid belief that income had escaped assessment for the previous year ending March 31, 2013. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that mere non-filing of a return of income does not automatically amount to concealment. Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) has specific conditions for deeming non-filing as concealment, which were not met in this case because a notice under Section 148 was issued within the specified period.
The Tribunal held that debenture interest was not part of the compromise scheme approved by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be taxed under Section 41(1). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify further details and grant relief if entitled.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted Form No.5 for full and final settlement of tax arrears. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of unexplained credit. The assessee failed to provide confirmation from the creditor to establish the genuineness of the loan transaction.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 54F for AY 2018-19 was not properly before the Tribunal for the assessment year under appeal (AY 2016-17). Therefore, the AO was directed to decide the issue afresh for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the issue of TDS non-deduction was to be dealt with in separate proceedings under Section 201 and 276C of the Act, and thus the ground was not maintainable. However, the addition for the difference in opening cash balance was deleted as the assessee had provided an explanation regarding a revised return.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus of explaining the source of the deposits by providing satisfactory evidence and an affidavit. The lower authorities wrongly made the addition without further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B should be charged up to the date of the regular assessment order. It followed a co-ordinate bench decision and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC was justified. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision that such contributions, if not deposited by the prescribed date, are not deductible.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the employees' contribution to Provident Fund. The decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that such payments must be made within the due date prescribed by the relevant Act to be allowable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' PF contribution made after the due date. The decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been properly served with the Section 143(1) intimation, as indicated by the 'Nil' entries for date and mode of service on the income tax portal. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) had become infructuous as the CPC had rectified its order and granted the exemption. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have dismissed the appeal as infructuous instead of deciding it on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified as it was based on more than just the ADIT's information, and the statement of Shri Om Prakash Bihani corroborated bank deposits. The Tribunal also ruled that cross-examination of Shri Om Prakash Bihani was not mandatory as his statement was not the sole basis for the addition, and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transactions.
The Tribunal held that late payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, even if made before the tax return filing due date, cannot be equated with payment by the statutory due date under the PF/ESI Acts. Therefore, the disallowance is upheld.
The Tribunal decided on several grounds, including upholding a transfer pricing adjustment on sales to AEs, allowing a deduction under Section 80IA for one unit, and dismissing an enhancement to book profit under Section 115JB. The appeals were disposed of based on these decisions.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on bogus purchases can be added to the income, not the entire amount. They directed the AO to estimate the profit at 12.5% on the amount treated as bogus purchase.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-functioning status and the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) with a condition of depositing a penalty.
The Tribunal decided on several grounds, including upholding a transfer pricing adjustment on sales to AEs, allowing a deduction under Section 80IA for one unit, and dismissing an enhancement to book profit under Section 115JB. The appeals were disposed of based on these decisions.
The Tribunal held that the land leveling expenses were not substantiated with proper bills and invoices and were not of a capital nature. It also found that the assessee failed to prove the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the cash credit transactions.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary powers under Section 263 were not correctly invoked. It noted that the Assessing Officer's actions were based on audit objections and Tax Evasion Petitions, and the Pr.CIT failed to independently form an opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the original assessment orders were already deleted by the CIT(A) due to lack of incriminating material, rendering the revision invalid.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of the principal loan amount, utilized for capital assets and not for trading activities, does not constitute income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of Section 41(1) are also not applicable as it is not a trading liability cessation.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary powers under Section 263 were not correctly invoked. It noted that the Assessing Officer's actions were based on audit objections and Tax Evasion Petitions, and the Pr.CIT failed to independently form an opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the original assessment orders were already deleted by the CIT(A) due to lack of incriminating material, rendering the revision invalid.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had already received relief from the Assessing Officer on the issue raised by the PCIT.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the explanation provided by the assessee was considered reasonable and ignored by the lower authority. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had accepted excess stock, but the valuation and claims regarding branded jewellery needed verification. The issue of telescoping unaccounted sales against stock shortages also required further examination.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO and TPO on account of notional interest on short-term advances to overseas subsidiaries. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding additional depreciation and the assessee's appeal on disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO and TPO on account of notional interest on short-term advances to overseas subsidiaries. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding additional depreciation and the assessee's appeal on disallowance under Section 14A.
The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, granted the prayer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench decisions which had set aside similar PCIT orders under Section 263, relying on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's view. The Tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's order, finding the PCIT's revision unsustainable.
The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and complied with the formalities. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme's benefit.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO and TPO on account of notional interest on short-term advances to overseas subsidiaries. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding additional depreciation and the assessee's appeal on disallowance under Section 14A.
The tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not deductible in computing income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.
The tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer for the late payment of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is to be upheld. This decision follows the jurisdictional High Court's ruling on a similar issue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.