Loading ITAT cases…
42 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the cash in hand as per the books of account exceeded the alleged advances, sufficiently explaining the source. Therefore, the deeming provisions of Section 69 could not be invoked.
The Tribunal held that while there was a failure to disclose income, the amount of tax sought to be evaded needed to be calculated after considering tax collected at source (TCS). Since the TCS of Rs. 32,788/- exceeded the calculated tax sought to be evaded (Rs. 12,386/-), there was no tax sought to be evaded.
The ITAT held that the PCIT's revision order was unsustainable as it made general observations without considering the specific facts of the case. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the assessee's suo-moto disallowance and that recourse to Rule 8D was only permissible if the AO was not satisfied.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay due to numerous pending court cases and health issues. The delay was condoned, and the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside with a direction to decide the applications afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that only the gross profit embedded in the undisclosed receipt should be brought to tax, not the entire amount. The AO was directed to apply the declared GP rate or 8%, whichever is higher, on the contractual receipt.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not deem the assessment order erroneous for issues not covered under limited scrutiny. Regarding the 80JJAA deduction and share capital, the Tribunal found that the AO had made adequate inquiries and the assessee had provided sufficient explanations, making the PCIT's revisionary order unsustainable.
The CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions after the assessee provided detailed explanations and evidence regarding the sources of investments and expenditures. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the AO was not given an opportunity to examine the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE was not applicable as the surrender was based on estimation without any incriminating material. Consequently, the disallowance of depreciation was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the deeming provisions of Section 69 cannot be invoked as no physical stock or cash was found during the survey to corroborate the surrender. The assessee's surrender, without corroborative material, cannot form the basis for invoking these provisions.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This was done due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's request for a hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This was done due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's request for a hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This was done due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's request for a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and correctly followed the ITAT's earlier decisions in the assessee's own case. The PCIT's order was considered a mere change of opinion, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The tribunal held that interest paid on borrowings utilized for payment of advance tax is not allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) as it is not for the purpose of business. The concept of commercial expediency does not apply to such payments.
The tribunal held that merely uploading information on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service of notice. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside due to lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were not valid as no search was conducted on the assessee company. It also deleted the additions made under Section 68 and the disallowance of depreciation, finding them to be unjustified and made without proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) for late deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions beyond the prescribed due dates is justified. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount on account of excess stock and building cost should be assessed as business income at normal rates, not under the deeming provisions of Section 69B or Section 115BBE. Depreciation disallowed on building cost was also directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed not to have received notices for hearings before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and applied his mind to the issue of cash deposits. Therefore, the Principal CIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search. The seized documents and the broker's statement were not considered incriminating in the absence of a satisfaction note from the AO at the time of search authorization.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were not valid as no search was conducted on the assessee company. It also deleted additions made under Section 68 and disallowances of loss and depreciation due to lack of proper justification and non-consideration of documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the record regarding whether the assessee was adequately confronted with the purchaser's information and afforded a proper opportunity to explain. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that for Section 80P(2)(d), the only conditions are that the income is interest earned by a cooperative society from its investments, and such investments are with another cooperative society. The nexus with business activity or the nature of the cooperative bank is not relevant.
The Tribunal found justification in the assessee's submissions regarding non-service of notices and personal difficulties. Consequently, the penalties levied were deemed unjustified and ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application was due to technical glitches on the Income Tax Department's portal, not intentional. The CIT(E)'s rejection on limitation grounds was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock represented business income and not unexplained investment. Therefore, Section 69B and Section 115BBE were not applicable, and normal tax rates should apply.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount was out of the assessee's unaccounted professional receipts, establishing a nexus with his profession. Therefore, it could not be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied an effective opportunity to file objections to the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO to pass a speaking order disposing of the objections.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which empowers the Assessing Officer to levy fees, was amended prospectively effective from June 1, 2015. Since the TDS returns were filed before this date, the fee under Section 234E could not be levied for the period prior to June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E, which empowers the Assessing Officer to levy fees, was amended prospectively effective from June 1, 2015. Since the TDS returns were filed before this date, the fee under Section 234E could not be levied for the period prior to June 1, 2015.
The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The case involved a difference of opinion on estimation and allowability of claims, not a deliberate attempt to evade tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be denied the benefit of TDS credit merely because the payment and TDS deduction occurred in a subsequent year to when the income was offered on an accrual basis. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as no proper search or panchnama was conducted in the name of the assessee company. Regarding the additions under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted them as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and the AO had failed to rebut it.
The Tribunal found that the ICDS adjustment was examined and accepted during the scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the AO should not have carried forward the initial adjustment made under Section 143(1) while computing the final income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as no proper search or panchnama was conducted in the name of the assessee company. Regarding the additions under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted them as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and the AO had failed to rebut it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO's original assessment order could not be held erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, as the basis for those additions (the Section 263 order) had been quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.