Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal decided to remit several issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, including Section 14A disallowances and ESOP claims. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii) deductions and RBI penalty disallowances. For corporate club membership fees, the Tribunal allowed 50% of the claim.
The Tribunal restored the issue of fuel leakage loss to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering it a normal business practice within permissible limits. The addition of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of discount was deleted.
The Tribunal held that even a belated return claiming Section 80P deduction does not negate the applicability of Section 80A(5). It also clarified that Section 80AC's condition of filing before the due date is applicable from 01.04.2018 onwards, and there was no material for retrospective applicability.
The Tribunal held that Section 80A(5) does not exclude returns filed under Section 148 from claiming deductions under Section 80P. Therefore, the assessee's claim could not be rejected solely on this basis.
The Tribunal is considering the assessee's grievance regarding the levy of penalty under Section 271B. The assessee's primary argument is that the audit requirement was already fulfilled by a competent authority.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to plead all relevant facts, the department did not rebut the cash balance records. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 16.09 lakhs was made for unexplained money, and personal expenditure was restricted to Rs. 75,000/-.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, remitted the issue of computation of interest under sections 234A and 234B back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudication on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked the required detailed discussion and framing of points of determination. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal ex-parte as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The specific decision on the merits of the addition is not detailed in the provided excerpt, as the hearing was ex-parte.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, remitted the issue of computation of interest under sections 234A and 234B back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 271B, acknowledging the assessee's reasons for the delay and noting that the audit report was filed before the assessment was completed. The Revenue could not dispute the reasons for the delay.
The Tribunal held that Section 43(6)(b) of the Income Tax Act allows depreciation to be claimed on assets acquired in earlier years, provided depreciation was not 'actually allowed' previously. The court directed the Assessing Officer to examine the claim on merits.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order, remitted the issue of computation of interest under sections 234A and 234B back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 271B, acknowledging the assessee's reasons for the delay and noting that the audit report was filed before the assessment was completed. The Revenue could not dispute the reasons for the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) failed to establish proper service of notices on the assessee and overlooked the assessee's preference for non-email communication. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 85,00,000/- as miscellaneous receipt under Section 56, finding that the assessee failed to disprove the findings. Grounds related to interest were remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed sufficient interest-free funds were used for investments. However, the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment regarding banks' stock-in-trade was uncertain without specific details about the assessee's banking status. Following its own precedent for the assessee's prior years, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 85,00,000/- as miscellaneous receipt under Section 56, finding that the assessee failed to disprove the findings. Grounds related to interest were remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 85,00,000/- as miscellaneous receipt under Section 56, finding that the assessee failed to disprove the findings. Grounds related to interest were remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 85,00,000/- as miscellaneous receipt under Section 56, finding that the assessee failed to disprove the findings. Grounds related to interest were remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that a delay in filing the audit report, when it is made available to the AO before the assessment is completed and no monetary loss is caused to the revenue, constitutes a venial technical breach. Therefore, penalty under section 271B cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the additional grounds without considering the supporting documents and the revised return. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.