Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange loss arising from foreign currency fluctuations on loans used for acquiring fixed assets should be allowed as revenue expenditure, by charging it to the Profit and Loss account, not as capital expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was a limited scrutiny case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were void ab initio and therefore, the penalty levied could not be sustained. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. The reasoning was that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated for, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2015) (11) TMI 1620, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case (2016) (8) TMI 1145. The Tribunal noted that the AO's penalty order itself contained contradictory statements regarding the grounds for penalty, stating in one part that the assessee concealed particulars and failed to furnish a return voluntarily, and in another part that the penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing true and correct taxable income. This inconsistency further supported the view that the notice was not specific. The Tribunal also held that Section 292B of the Act could not cure such a basic defect in the assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as the penalty proceedings themselves were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank vs. CIT, which clarified that debiting doubtful debt to P&L and crediting the asset account constitutes a write-off eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that Section 54 of the IT Act does not prohibit the use of borrowed funds or funds other than sale proceeds for purchasing a new asset. The primary condition is the purchase of a residential property within the specified time frame.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer failed to examine the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) or Section 68 concerning the preference share issue. The assessment order was set aside for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide mistake and reliance on High Court precedents. It held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and formed a possible view, thus the CIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide mistake and reliance on High Court precedents. It held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and formed a possible view, thus the CIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were not justified.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) had the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 133(6) and that the penalty order was within the prescribed time limits. The Tribunal found no reasonable cause for the non-furnishing of information.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.