Loading ITAT cases…
113 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the difference between the fair market value and the purchase price was less than 10%. Relying on a previous tribunal decision, it restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify this difference and decide accordingly.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on vehicles used for business even if registered in directors' names, and allowed relief for Section 40A(3) violations due to bona fide mistake. However, it upheld the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS where PANs were not provided.
The Tribunal found that the revisionary order was indeed passed ex parte without considering the assessee's objections. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Principal Commissioner to pass a fresh order after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that profit from speculative transactions of Rs. 5,44,667/- should be added. No addition was warranted for short-term capital losses. A 5% profit on the sale value of open sell position was to be added.
The Tribunal held that while the entire disallowance might not be justified, a partial disallowance of 10% of the alleged bogus subcontract expenses was appropriate. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the requirement to file the audit report along with the return is a procedural and directory provision. The assessee was granted exemption under Section 11 as the assessment proceedings were still pending before the Tribunal when the audit report was filed.
The Tribunal found that the unsecured loan addition under Section 68 appeared to relate to an earlier assessment year. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and loose papers, without confronting them to the assessee or providing an opportunity for cross-examination, lack evidentiary value. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries to corroborate the seized material.
The Tribunal found that the commission income was genuine and supported by documents, which were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the addition on account of commission income was deleted.
The Tribunal held that depreciation can be claimed on assets purchased in directors' names if used for business, but this was not proven here. The addition for the creditor's account difference was deleted as the payment and TDS were made. The disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on transporter payments was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that while the entire disallowance might not be justified, a partial disallowance of 10% of the alleged bogus subcontract expenses was appropriate. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the entire disallowance might not be justified, a partial disallowance of 10% of the alleged bogus subcontract expenses was appropriate. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the entire disallowance might not be justified, a partial disallowance of 10% of the alleged bogus subcontract expenses was appropriate. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the entire disallowance might not be justified, a partial disallowance of 10% of the alleged bogus subcontract expenses was appropriate. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided necessary details for the claim under Section 43AA, the AO failed to conduct any inquiry regarding this specific deduction in the revised return. This lack of inquiry led to the assessment order being considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from depositing surplus funds with banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it does not arise from the society's primary activity of providing credit facilities to its members. However, interest expenses incurred against such income should be adjusted.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, no proceedings could be continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeal could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that since the revenue accepted similar claims for long-term capital gains in the case of co-owners of the same property, the assessee is also entitled to similar relief. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an opportunity to counter the statement of Shri Praveen Jain, and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the share application money. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable on merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to explain the source of cash deposits, such as loan ledgers, interest details, or TDS. The explanation regarding unsecured loans from the company was found inadequate.
The Tribunal restored the file to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a due opportunity of hearing to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that a personal loan taken in 1999 was wrongly treated as income was not substantiated. The Tribunal also found that the expenses claimed were not related to any advances received, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash available from loan recoveries, bank withdrawals, and declared business income to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view that the transactions were genuine and not penny stock trading, based on the evidence provided by the assessee. The Pr.CIT failed to controvert the facts or point out specific deficiencies in the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of treating the entire credit balance as unexplained was unsustainable. It also found that opening balances from previous years and minuscule advances received through banking channels could not be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal further held that Section 41(1) was not applicable as the assessee had not written back liabilities in its books.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash credits. It also found that the Assessing Officer had not recorded proper satisfaction for rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of treating the entire credit balance as unexplained was unsustainable. It also found that opening balances from previous years and minuscule advances received through banking channels could not be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal further held that Section 41(1) was not applicable as the assessee had not written back liabilities in its books.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest expenditure to the CIT(A) for further enquiry into the nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest income. The issue of ALV was dismissed for AY 2014-15 and allowed for statistical purposes for AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the NCLT order, passed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act. Consequently, all liabilities of the assessee, including those under the Income-tax Act, were extinguished.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the PCIT could not substitute his own judgment for that of the AO. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to non-specification of the relevant limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the show-cause notice and the failure to specify Section 271AAA in the initial notice. Furthermore, the assessee had provided explanations and evidence for the cash deposits during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S. S. K. Ltd, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to determine the profit component within the excess payment and allow the rest as deductible expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to non-specification of the relevant limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the show-cause notice and the failure to specify Section 271AAA in the initial notice. Furthermore, the assessee had provided explanations and evidence for the cash deposits during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to non-specification of the relevant limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the show-cause notice and the failure to specify Section 271AAA in the initial notice. Furthermore, the assessee had provided explanations and evidence for the cash deposits during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to non-specification of the relevant limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the show-cause notice and the failure to specify Section 271AAA in the initial notice. Furthermore, the assessee had provided explanations and evidence for the cash deposits during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since a portion of the unexplained cash credit was adjusted against outstanding debtors, the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction for bad debts amounting to Rs. 16,43,329/- under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the liquidator, who should have pursued it, did not appear. The liquidator was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if deemed fit.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153C was against the law as the seized material did not belong to the assessee and was not found from their premises. The Tribunal also deleted the addition made under Section 68 for both assessment years, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S. S. K. Ltd, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to determine the profit component within the excess payment and allow the rest as deductible expenditure.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication. This was done to ensure justice and fair play, allowing the assessee to present their case with the newly admitted evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to non-specification of the relevant limb of Section 271(1)(c) in the show-cause notice and the failure to specify Section 271AAA in the initial notice. Furthermore, the assessee had provided explanations and evidence for the cash deposits during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the DVO's report did not consider the commercial nature of the property. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication, considering both the DVO's report and the assessee's registered valuer's report.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and non-appearance, remitting the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper verification during the assessment proceedings, including examining Form 10CCB and financial statements. The PCIT's view was considered a change of opinion, not a valid reason for revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 9A has since been condoned by the CIT (Exemptions). Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the assessee's claim on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to verify the source of investment from previous year's deposits and to re-examine the valuation of shares, considering the company's financial distress and subsequent liquidation.
The Tribunal held that while entire purchases cannot be disallowed, a certain percentage should be disallowed due to the inability to identify the supplier. For the deposit discrepancy, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of bank confirmation.
The assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh hearing on merits. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to present additional evidence and arguments, especially since the creditor company was found to be in liquidation.