Loading ITAT cases…
132 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation, though reproduced, was not considered independently in the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bills for beds and an Income Tax Inspector's report, to establish the existence of 100 beds. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order. The deficiencies in the audit report and the lack of proper verification by the AO regarding the notified area and manufacturing activity were significant.
The Tribunal held that the issue of jurisdiction was a key point of contention. The assessee had actively disputed the jurisdiction of the ACIT, Gurgaon, and provided evidence of his business operations and tax payments in Delhi. The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent efforts to establish jurisdiction with the Delhi ITO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not adequately address the assessee's specific grievances and failed to meet the requirements of law. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's proprietary concern's cash balance and the property investment addition was protective, with the substantive addition in the company's case being upheld. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions was justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have verified the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties from whom funds were received before making additions. Since the assessee had explained the source of credit and claimed expenses, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was imposed for mere disallowance of a claim, which does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal also noted the absence of specific findings by the AO on how inaccurate particulars were furnished.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had no cause of action to file the present appeal as the relief sought before the CIT(A) was not declined. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to allow the claim after verification. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the loss on repossessed vehicles is a revenue loss as it is an integral part of the hire purchase business. The loss on shares held as stock-in-trade, mandated by RBI for NBFCs, was also allowed as a business loss.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider all aspects raised by the assessee, particularly regarding the violation of natural justice and the AO's reliance on unverified information. The order was set aside to allow the CIT(A) to first decide jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal held that the loss on repossessed vehicles is a revenue loss as it is an integral part of the hire purchase business. The loss on shares held as stock-in-trade, mandated by RBI for NBFCs, was also allowed as a business loss.
The Tribunal found that both the registered valuer and the DVO had not referred to comparable instances and adopted values without supporting material. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(24)(iv) is not applicable to partnership firms, and that a journal entry to enhance promoter's contribution does not constitute real income. Therefore, the notional interest addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AIFF's activities for promoting football fall under 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' and are charitable. The proviso to section 2(15) is not attracted as the activities are not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. The Tribunal also held that depreciation is allowable and not a double deduction.
The Tribunal found that both the registered valuer and the DVO had not referred to comparable instances and adopted values without supporting material. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to lease rights in a shop plot, as it specifically applies to land or building or both. The issue of mortgage expenses was remanded to the AO to establish a nexus with the business.
The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional issue regarding the notice under Section 153A had not been decided by the CIT(A). Therefore, the entire order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional issue regarding the notice under Section 153A had not been decided by the CIT(A). Therefore, the entire order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The tribunal held that depreciation on assets other than plant and machinery should be allowed, following the principle of consistency with prior assessment years. However, depreciation on plant and machinery was disallowed as the company had ceased manufacturing operations.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO regarding the rejection of the trading result and the GP rate, finding the stock valuation to be unverifiable. However, the Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of profit on sale of machinery, finding it to be made on an estimated basis without cogent justification.
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. In the absence of any representation or request for adjournment, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal, citing legal principles and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The tribunal held that depreciation on assets other than plant and machinery should be allowed, following the principle of consistency with prior assessment years. However, depreciation on plant and machinery was disallowed as the company had ceased manufacturing operations.
The Tribunal held that the VDIS declaration, though submitted late, needed verification, and the agricultural income claim was supported by evidence of cultivation and past acceptance by revenue authorities. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in one case and allowed in the other.
The Tribunal held that the VDIS declaration, though submitted late, needed verification, and the agricultural income claim was supported by evidence of cultivation and past acceptance by revenue authorities. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in one case and allowed in the other.
The Tribunal held that Section 35DDA, which allows deduction for VSS payments over five years, presupposes the continuation of business. Since the assessee's business was being closed down, the scheme was not truly voluntary, and the deduction should not be governed by Section 35DDA. Consequently, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the business was not closed or discontinued by the assessee, despite a lack of receipts, and that the firm maintained its establishment. The Tribunal held that a lack of receipts does not automatically presume business closure.
The Tribunal held that accepting a loan through a journal entry does not constitute a transfer of money and therefore does not fall under the purview of Section 269SS. Consequently, no penalty under Section 271D is leviable for such an entry.
The Tribunal held that Section 35DDA, which allows deduction for VSS payments over five years, presupposes a continuing business. Since the assessee's business was being closed, the scheme was not truly voluntary, and the deduction should not be restricted as per Section 35DDA. Consequently, the addition and the penalty were deleted.