Loading ITAT cases…
126 orders · Page 3 of 3
The tribunal corrected a typographical error in its previous order. The balance addition of ₹.3,00,000/- was clarified to be deleted, not sustained, in relation to an addition confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove her claim as no evidence was produced to support the source of the cash deposits or the identity and capacity of the alleged depositors. The claim was considered unbelievable and an afterthought.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was cryptic and lacked proper verification of cash deposits. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order and directing the AO to re-examine the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the jewellery and silver articles, including gifts and family withdrawals, was reasonably explained and fell within the limits for non-seizure of gold jewellery. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding the addition under Section 69 and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all details to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing was due to the late receipt of the audit report. Citing a previous similar case, the Tribunal decided to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal, even after considering the Supreme Court's extensions. Therefore, the condonation plea was not entertained.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) back to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure a consistent stand from the revenue. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding on AO's satisfaction and directed the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without due application of mind and necessary inquiries, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Revisionary powers under Section 263 were justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not examined the issue of depreciation on goodwill, and no view was taken by the AO. Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 263 were satisfied, and the revisionary jurisdiction was validly exercised.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the issue of capital gains and the assessee's submissions. The AO's view was a plausible one, and the revisionary order was unsustainable. The original assessment order was restored.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposits with documentary evidence. The explanation regarding an OTS account was not supported by any proof and the SARFESI notice was issued much later.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the additions for bogus purchases were not substantiated as they represented cash withdrawals from bank accounts and could be telescoped against available funds. The additions for stock differences were also found to be made without proper basis or evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO without proper application of mind. The Tribunal agreed that the notice was invalid and the consequent reassessment was without valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the firm continued to exist and had filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. The transaction was considered a slump sale of business to the company, not a succession of the firm by the company. Therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in the hands of the transferee company.
The Tribunal restored the issue of entity-level transfer pricing adjustments to the AO/TPO for re-adjudication. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was confirmed, while the disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed, directing the AO to verify facts regarding exempt income and interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that the issues concerning royalty and management fees required fresh adjudication by the AO, considering the assessee's arguments and earlier Tribunal orders. The matter of entity-level TNMM adjustment was restored to the TPO/AO for re-adjudication, including the computation of Profit Level Indicator (PLI), economic adjustments, and selection of comparable entities, as the royalty and management fee adjustments would materially impact these. Regarding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va), the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. For the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the assessee earned any exempt income and had sufficient interest-free funds. If not, no disallowance would be warranted under normal provisions. The adjustment of this disallowance under Section 115JB was held to be not applicable, following earlier Tribunal decisions. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee's claim that his income was below the taxable limit was not considered a reasonable cause for not obtaining an audit report.
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form No. 10 has now been condoned by the CIT(Exemptions), the Assessing Officer needs to re-examine the disallowance of accumulation. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly deliberated on the issues raised by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that losses on forward contracts can be treated as business losses only if linked to underlying transactions with actual delivery. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence of underlying transactions or details of forward contract cancellations, the disallowance was upheld. The reopening of assessment was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that since the income was linked to business activity and had been accepted as such in previous years, it should be assessed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business and Profession' and not under Section 68. Consequently, Section 115BBE was not applicable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment order concerning the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to substantiate its claim before the AO.
The Tribunal held that losses on forward contracts can be treated as business losses only if linked to underlying transactions with actual delivery. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence of underlying transactions or details of forward contract cancellations, the disallowance was upheld. The reopening of assessment was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's own funds exceeded investments and no nexus between borrowings and exempt income was established, the additional disallowance by the AO was not sustainable. The AO was directed to accept the disallowance offered by the assessee.