Loading ITAT cases…
221 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a change in CA. It set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after imposing a cost on the assessee.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the alleged income tax refund money receipts were taxable as income from other sources. Deductions claimed for subsequent recovery or repayment of this fraudulent income were disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the alleged income tax refund money receipts were taxable as income from other sources. Deductions claimed for subsequent recovery or repayment were disallowed as they did not constitute expenses incurred for earning income.
The Tribunal held that the AO was incorrect in rejecting the assessee's consistently followed percentage completion method of accounting. The addition led to double taxation as profit was already accounted for in earlier years.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to establish the source and creditworthiness of the parties providing unsecured loans and share application money.
The Tribunal held that there is no statutory obligation to file the return within the stipulated time as a precondition for claiming Section 54F exemption. The reinvestment was made within seven days, making the deposit in a Capital Gains Account Scheme unnecessary.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). However, since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not complying with the notice, as per Section 273B of the Act. The lower authorities failed to consider this provision. Therefore, the penalty levied was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and allowed the assessee another opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of a nominal cost. The CIT(E) was also directed to consider a coordinate bench's decision regarding the applicability of Section 13(1)(b) at the registration stage.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was unsustainable in law. The Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view based on the material on record, and the PCIT could not take a different view on the same material in revisional proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income is exempt under Sections 11 and 12, the additions and disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not sustainable. Consequently, all additions, disallowances, and consequential levies were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income is exempt under Sections 11 and 12, the additions and disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not sustainable. Consequently, all additions, disallowances, and consequential levies were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits, including details of gold sales to relatives and neighbours, and the reason for keeping cash for medical expenses. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had ignored these explanations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal without dealing with the grounds of appeal and issuing notices within a short period. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 was based on presumption and not supported by evidence. The Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the assessee made this payment from undisclosed sources.
The tribunal held that the disallowance of carry forward loss by the CPC was incorrect. The assessee had filed its return within the due date, considering its international transactions, and the provision used for disallowance was not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the agreement was entered into to secure the trust's interests and ensure professional management, not to derive profit or benefit related parties. The Tribunal agreed that no part of the charitable income was used for the benefit of specific individuals.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the assessee's books of accounts due to the failure to substantiate the genuineness of expenses. The estimation of gross profit was deemed reasonable given the lack of proper documentation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the 80G application based on an incorrect presumption that the assessee lacked valid 12A registration. The assessee possessed a valid 12A registration for the relevant period.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings regarding the deduction under Section 80IA(4) were subsequently decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the inclusion of 'religious' in the objects alone does not disqualify a trust for Section 80G approval if expenditure on religious purposes is less than 5% of total income. The CIT(E) failed to verify this aspect and address the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable as it was a cryptic, non-speaking order passed without considering the assessee's detailed contentions. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed examined the issues during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow proportionate expenditure on the interest received from Nationalised Banks. This was based on the principle that expenses incurred in earning such interest should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that if the primary reason for reopening the assessment is deleted, the entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, while noting the lack of satisfactory explanation for non-compliance, set aside the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh opportunity. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted the required documents and clarifications. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s finding of non-compliance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that since the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds and not merits, it was appropriate to set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-representation to be genuine and decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of evidence. The assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's order was not sustainable as there was no clear finding of error in the AO's order. The information available with the AO indicated a chain of fund flow involving shell entities, but lacked specifics regarding the assessee's transaction with HVPL.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the amount was duly accounted for as sales proceeds and was already considered for taxation. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to establish a clear nexus with the alleged accommodation entry provider and that the burden to prove the genuineness of customers for sales proceeds under Section 68 is not on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits after considering the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) and granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loans with interest and deducted TDS. The evidence presented, including bank statements and company records, supported the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had incurred a net loss of Rs. 73,92,761/-. Considering the fraud perpetrated by the broker and the realities of the transactions, no addition on account of profit was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective for not specifying the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, it found no case for concealment or inaccurate particulars regarding the stock difference, as it was reflected in audited accounts.
The Tribunal held that guarantee fees paid by the assessee are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the calculation of depreciation for book profit purposes, allowing depreciation as per Income-Tax Rules rather than the Companies Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition, being an apparent mistake liable for adjustment under Section 143(1)(a), did not qualify as under-reported income under Section 270A(2)(a). Consequently, it could not be considered misreported income either.
The Tribunal held that since similar transactions in earlier assessment years did not result in additions, and the assessee had provided evidence of fraud by his employer, the additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits and investments. The reasons given by the DRP for rejecting the assessee's explanations were found to be arbitrary and not based on facts.
The Tribunal held that guarantee fees paid by the assessee are allowable as revenue expenditure. It also ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the calculation of depreciation for book profit purposes, allowing depreciation as per Income-Tax Rules rather than the Companies Act.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issues back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to provide requisite details and demonstrate the business nature of expenses, following principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly considered the details filed by the assessee regarding the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition, being an apparent mistake liable for adjustment under Section 143(1)(a), did not qualify as under-reported income under Section 270A(2)(a). Consequently, it could not be considered misreported income either.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 159 days, considering the substantial issues raised by the assessee and the significant financial implications. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on its merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash withdrawals to prove the sources of Rs.7,67,580/-. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs.1,60,000/- in AY 2009-10 and Rs.1,62,000/- in AY 2011-12. After the survey, the assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs.49,41,000/-. Considering the return of income filed and the past agricultural income earned, coupled with the bank withdrawals, the Tribunal held that no further addition was warranted on account of capital receipt, unexplained money, or agricultural income. The additions upheld by the CIT(A) were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It found that no addition was called for regarding interest on Capital Work in Progress as the assessee's own funds exceeded the CWIP value significantly. The judgment implies other grounds were considered, leading to a partial allowance.
The Tribunal found that the CPC's reasons for adjustment were factually incorrect and that the CIT(A)'s disallowance was based on an amendment to the law that was not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the actions of the lower authorities were not upheld.