Loading ITAT cases…
35 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that for valid proceedings under Section 153C, two satisfaction notes are required: one from the AO of the searched person and another from the AO of the other person. The single satisfaction note produced was found to be insufficient and lacked the required legal sanctity.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had obtained substantial relief in separate proceedings under Section 264 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction, rendering the subsequent assessment without jurisdiction. While the Tribunal agreed that a notice under section 143(2) was not mandatory in this specific scenario, the primary reason for quashing the assessment was the invalid reopening.
The Tribunal held that for valid proceedings under Section 153C, two satisfaction notes are required: one from the AO of the searched person and another from the AO of the other person. The single satisfaction note produced was found to be insufficient and lacked the required legal sanctity.
The Tribunal held that for valid proceedings under Section 153C, two satisfaction notes are required: one from the AO of the searched person and another from the AO of the other person. The single satisfaction note produced was found to be insufficient and lacked the required legal sanctity.
The Tribunal held that for valid proceedings under Section 153C, two satisfaction notes are required: one from the AO of the searched person and another from the AO of the other person. The single satisfaction note produced was found to be insufficient and lacked the required legal sanctity.
The Tribunal held that for valid proceedings under Section 153C, two satisfaction notes are required: one from the AO of the searched person and another from the AO of the other person. The single satisfaction note produced was found to be insufficient and lacked the required legal sanctity.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue Department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. This was in accordance with CBDT Instruction No. 03 of 2018, which is binding on the Department and applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271A was wrongly levied as there was no finding that the assessee failed to maintain the specific books of accounts required by Section 44AA. The rejection of accounts under Section 145(3) does not automatically attract Section 271A.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment proceedings were set aside, the penalty proceedings would also need to be restored. The penalty appeal was accordingly set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 16 lacs could not be assessed as unexplained income in the assessee's hands as there was no evidence of the shop's sale or receipt of cash by the assessee. However, the capital loss claimed on the sale was also disallowed due to lack of evidence. The addition of Rs. 1,44,124 was confirmed as the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the bank deposits.
The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed capital incurred for holding a capital asset after its acquisition is a holding cost and not a cost of acquisition. Therefore, it cannot be deducted in computing capital gains.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on concealed turnover, even if the income is assessed on an estimated basis. The assessee's failure to provide material to show no profit on undisclosed turnover supported the penalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on concealed turnover, even if the income is assessed on an estimated basis. The assessee's failure to provide material to show no profit on undisclosed turnover supported the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had misrepresented facts by showing the investment as a business asset. However, the penalty calculation had inconsistencies regarding the period of investment and the interest rate.
The Tribunal held that an estimation of income, by itself, cannot lead to a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars unless there is evidence of concealment or fabrication. The assessee's reliance on audited accounts and the possibility of variations in profit margins were considered.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation of non-appearance and non-filing of submissions was contrary to the record. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds of appeal related to general nature were dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding the agency commission, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal on this issue. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to interest income and EPF deposits, allowing one ground for the assessee and dismissing another for the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds of appeal related to general nature were dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding the agency commission, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal on this issue. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to interest income and EPF deposits, allowing one ground for the assessee and dismissing another for the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the estimated profit rate of 10% was excessive and directed the AO to compute income at 5.14% of contract receipts, considering past accepted profit rates. However, the claim for depreciation deduction from the estimated profit was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no specific error in it. The CIT(A) had followed a previous Tribunal decision for the same assessee in an earlier assessment year, which allowed the deduction on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out specific unverifiable freight payments. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that book results cannot be rejected solely on the ground of a decline in profit rate without specific defects in the accounts. Since no such defects were pointed out, the addition made by the lower authorities was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee, such as FIR proceedings and a director's illness, did not constitute a reasonable cause for the significant delay in getting the accounts audited. The Tribunal found no nexus between the criminal proceedings and the inability to get accounts audited, especially since other staff were available.
The Tribunal held that the transactions in agricultural commodity derivatives should not be treated as speculative, even if CTT was not paid, due to a curative amendment. The loss is allowed to be set off against business income.
The Tribunal held that if such contributions are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim regarding the group gratuity fund balance. The difference between the closing balance and the brought-forward amount also required further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the payability of interest depends on the loan agreement terms, not the bank's accounting entries. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence of deferred payability, the disallowance under Section 43B(e) was upheld.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the CIT(A) provided sufficient basis for the profit calculation. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payability of interest depends on the loan agreement terms, not the bank's accounting entries. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence of deferred payability, the disallowance under Section 43B(e) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that if such contributions are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the CIT(A) provided sufficient basis for the profit calculation. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any explanation for the business purpose of the advance. However, the plea regarding sufficient own funds to cover the advance was considered, and the matter was remanded for verification of whether bank borrowings were diverted for non-business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in not returning the interest income as there was no certainty of its realization and it was not an interest-bearing deposit. The penalty was not imposable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, citing the principle that the law assists the vigilant. The Tribunal also noted that the appeal was time-barred and would not be restored.