Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowances, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. Regarding depreciation on capital subsidy, the Tribunal ruled that the subsidy amount cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the capital asset for depreciation calculation.
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute Section 14A disallowances considering only investments yielding exempt income. It allowed depreciation on capital subsidy, reversing the lower authorities' decision. For weighted deductions, the issue was remitted to the AO to await DSIR's reply.
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute Section 14A disallowances considering only investments yielding exempt income. It allowed depreciation on capital subsidy, stating it cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the asset. For weighted deduction, the issue was remanded to await DSIR's reply.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the source of cash deposits from business transactions. It noted that the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, permitted transactions in SBNs until December 31, 2016, provided the source was established.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot sit in judgment over the report submitted by the prescribed authority (DSIR) in Form 3CL. The survey findings, being subsequent to the DSIR's approval, did not impact the validity of the deduction.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were explained as cash in hand held before demonetization and collections from business debtors. Following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal held that a mere violation of RBI notifications does not automatically make the source of deposits unexplained under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without hearing the assessee constituted a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Ld.CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that the difference represented GST collected on sales was not initially accepted by the AO due to the non-production of GST returns. However, upon production of the GST return before the Tribunal, the issue was restored to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging a reasonable cause. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence of collecting fees and remitting them to the university, and estimated 8% of the cash deposit as the assessee's net income from business.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and non-speaking, confirming the addition without discussing its merits or inquiring about the assessee's non-participation. It noted the assessee's explanation and new evidence (VAT returns) not presented to the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the AO for a de-novo assessment regarding the Rs.24 lakhs addition.
The assessees expressed their desire to withdraw the appeals as they had accepted the profit estimated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Department did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the 3-day delay and, noting the assessee's non-participation before lower authorities, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It remitted the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment with a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, guided by the *Tin Box Company vs CIT* precedent. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was also imposed.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte orders by both the AO and CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to frame a fresh assessment de novo, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present her case. The assessee was also directed to be diligent in responding to future notices.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to participate before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Despite the negligence, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting a reasonable cause due to miscommunication. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and file documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging reasonable cause for the delay. However, due to the assessee's consistent non-participation in proceedings before the AO and the appellate authorities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the inadvertent mistake in mentioning 'religious-cum-charitable' in Form 10AB should not be a ground to deny registration as a charitable institution, especially when the Memorandum of Association specifies charitable objects. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed it to consider the application afresh.
The Tribunal held that the payments were documented in sale deeds, clearly outlining the consideration split between landlords and POA holders. The AO's disallowance based on POA holders' non-existence or non-filing of returns was not valid as the transactions were legally documented.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex parte assessment order, directing a de novo assessment. The penalty appeal was also set aside to be decided after the de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email ID, and thus no fault could be attributed to the assessee for not responding. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. Despite noting the assessee's non-participation before the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for denovo assessment, considering the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal noted that both the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without going into the merits. Given the circumstances, the tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to file submissions and documents, and a cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a cryptic ex-parte order without considering the grounds of appeal. Since the assessee could not be faulted for non-receipt of notices due to them landing in the SPAM folder, a further opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a reasonable cause and admitted it for adjudication. While setting aside the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding a reasonable cause. It set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition to income is based on estimation. The Tribunal also noted that making an incorrect claim in law does not attract penalty for concealment.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked proper inquiry. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal found that the core issue was inadequate submission of details by the assessee and granted one last opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld the admissibility of electronic evidence and the findings of unaccounted cash receipts. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that only the profit element embedded in these receipts was taxable, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unaccounted cash collected from customers for the sale of flats was not valid. The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) and other evidence, the core of the addition was based on admissions made during a survey under Section 133A. Citing the case of CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 284), the Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 133A do not have conclusive evidentiary value, as the survey officer is not authorized to administer an oath. The judgment in Dhingra Metal Works highlighted that admissions, while important, are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any admission under Section 132(4) that carried evidentiary value and that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of statements obtained during a survey. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the validity of reassessment under Section 148, the assessee did not seriously contest these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was duty-bound to refer matters to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 43CA(2) when the actual sales value of plots fell outside the tolerance range, even if the assessee did not explicitly request it. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the deletion of additions made by the Ld. CIT(A) in certain cases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient contemporaneous evidence, including details in the notes to audited financial statements and certification by the statutory auditor in Form 3CLA, to establish the incurrence of capital expenditure for scientific research. Therefore, the deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) was allowable.
The Tribunal held that the provision for contract losses, made on a percentage of completion method, is an ascertained liability and an allowable deduction. This decision was based on the assessee's consistent accounting practice and supported by case law.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unaccounted cash collected from customers for the sale of flats was not valid. The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) and other evidence, the core of the addition was based on admissions made during a survey under Section 133A. Citing the case of CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 284), the Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 133A do not have conclusive evidentiary value, as the survey officer is not authorized to administer an oath. The judgment in Dhingra Metal Works highlighted that admissions, while important, are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any admission under Section 132(4) that carried evidentiary value and that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of statements obtained during a survey. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the validity of reassessment under Section 148, the assessee did not seriously contest these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unaccounted cash collected from customers for the sale of flats was not valid. The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) and other evidence, the core of the addition was based on admissions made during a survey under Section 133A. Citing the case of CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 284), the Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 133A do not have conclusive evidentiary value, as the survey officer is not authorized to administer an oath. The judgment in Dhingra Metal Works highlighted that admissions, while important, are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any admission under Section 132(4) that carried evidentiary value and that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of statements obtained during a survey. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the validity of reassessment under Section 148, the assessee did not seriously contest these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unaccounted cash collected from customers for the sale of flats was not valid. The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) and other evidence, the core of the addition was based on admissions made during a survey under Section 133A. Citing the case of CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 284), the Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 133A do not have conclusive evidentiary value, as the survey officer is not authorized to administer an oath. The judgment in Dhingra Metal Works highlighted that admissions, while important, are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any admission under Section 132(4) that carried evidentiary value and that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of statements obtained during a survey. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the validity of reassessment under Section 148, the assessee did not seriously contest these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unaccounted cash collected from customers for the sale of flats was not valid. The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) and other evidence, the core of the addition was based on admissions made during a survey under Section 133A. Citing the case of CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 284), the Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 133A do not have conclusive evidentiary value, as the survey officer is not authorized to administer an oath. The judgment in Dhingra Metal Works highlighted that admissions, while important, are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any admission under Section 132(4) that carried evidentiary value and that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of statements obtained during a survey. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the validity of reassessment under Section 148, the assessee did not seriously contest these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unaccounted cash collected from customers for the sale of flats was not valid. The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) and other evidence, the core of the addition was based on admissions made during a survey under Section 133A. Citing the case of CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 284), the Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 133A do not have conclusive evidentiary value, as the survey officer is not authorized to administer an oath. The judgment in Dhingra Metal Works highlighted that admissions, while important, are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any admission under Section 132(4) that carried evidentiary value and that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of statements obtained during a survey. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the validity of reassessment under Section 148, the assessee did not seriously contest these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unaccounted cash collected from customers for the sale of flats was not valid. The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) and other evidence, the core of the addition was based on admissions made during a survey under Section 133A. Citing the case of CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 284), the Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 133A do not have conclusive evidentiary value, as the survey officer is not authorized to administer an oath. The judgment in Dhingra Metal Works highlighted that admissions, while important, are not conclusive and can be rebutted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any admission under Section 132(4) that carried evidentiary value and that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of statements obtained during a survey. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the validity of reassessment under Section 148, the assessee did not seriously contest these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation adequate. It also set aside the CIT(E)'s order, directing a fresh adjudication of the registration application after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expected loss on contracts, amounting to Rs. 11.37 Crores (for AY 2015-16, as per later discussion in the judgment), is an allowable deduction. The assessee followed the percentage of completion method (POCM) for recognizing revenue and costs. As per AS-7, probable losses must be recognized immediately. The assessee estimated losses and made a provision. This provision was reversed in subsequent years and offered to tax, indicating it was an ascertained liability or probable loss. The Tribunal distinguished the case of FLSmidth v DCIT, noting that in the present case, the assessee provided computations and workings, and the provision was reversed based on subsequent year estimations. The Tribunal followed the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17, which held a similar provision as an ascertained liability. Consequently, the addition on account of this provision was deleted. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for not withholding taxes on reimbursement of expenses was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expected loss on contracts, amounting to Rs. 11.37 Crores (for AY 2015-16, as per later discussion in the judgment), is an allowable deduction. The assessee followed the percentage of completion method (POCM) for recognizing revenue and costs. As per AS-7, probable losses must be recognized immediately. The assessee estimated losses and made a provision. This provision was reversed in subsequent years and offered to tax, indicating it was an ascertained liability or probable loss. The Tribunal distinguished the case of FLSmidth v DCIT, noting that in the present case, the assessee provided computations and workings, and the provision was reversed based on subsequent year estimations. The Tribunal followed the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17, which held a similar provision as an ascertained liability. Consequently, the addition on account of this provision was deleted. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for not withholding taxes on reimbursement of expenses was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and had not adequately addressed the assessee's challenge to the application of Section 115BBE. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for readjudication, directing a speaking order after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were ex-parte and the AO's order was not a speaking order without proper enquiries. The Tribunal decided to set aside the lower authorities' orders and restore the matter to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's order was not a speaking order and lacked clear facts. The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were not speaking orders and lacked proper inquiry. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to present their case and evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked proper inquiries. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was erroneous, particularly as appeals on the same issues were pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted that the AO had conducted necessary enquiries before passing the original assessment order.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's declared GP rate of 7.32% for AY 2018-19 was higher than the average GP rate of 5.48% from the preceding four assessment years. Citing a judicial precedent, the Tribunal ruled that when books are rejected, no further addition is warranted if the current year's GP rate is better than previous years. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons. However, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.