Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries regarding trade creditors and expenses, and the CIT's order was based on suspicion. The Tribunal also found a factual error in the CIT's calculation of share application money.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative and had not provided evidence during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that while payment of tax and interest does not absolve the assessee from penalty, the penalty under Section 221(1) should be reasonable. Considering the assessee eventually paid the entire demand with interest, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction of penalty to 10% of the outstanding demand to be just and fair.
The Tribunal held that while payment of tax and interest does not absolve the assessee from penalty, the penalty under Section 221(1) should be reasonable. Considering the assessee eventually paid the entire demand with interest, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction of penalty to 10% of the outstanding demand to be just and fair.
The Tribunal held that while payment of tax and interest does not absolve the assessee from penalty, the penalty under Section 221(1) should be reasonable. Considering the assessee eventually paid the entire demand with interest, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction of penalty to 10% of the outstanding demand to be just and fair.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was given some opportunity, the circumstances of the case warranted a fresh hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment after providing due opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal held that all material facts were disclosed by the assessee during the original assessment and there was no failure to disclose fully and truly. The reopening was based solely on a change of opinion, making the invocation of Section 147 incorrect.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had indeed conducted share trading and incurred losses. The Assessing Officer's disallowance lacked valid reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to condone the delay, finding that the delay was due to valid reasons stemming from the peculiar facts of the case and the assessee not being at fault. The CIT(A)'s order was considered speaking and detailed.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the claimed losses, deductions, and expenses. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified by the facts and evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD was wrongly invoked as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside due to the admission of additional evidence without a remand report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing its appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no exempt income during the year, the provisions of Section 14A were not applicable. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that if the additions made in the assessment are deleted in the quantum appeal, there is no basis to sustain a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that while payment of tax and interest does not absolve the assessee from penalty, the penalty under Section 221(1) should be reasonable. Considering the assessee eventually paid the entire demand with interest, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction of penalty to 10% of the outstanding demand to be just and fair.
The Tribunal found that the disputed tax amount in each appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the disputed tax amount in each appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the explanation for the delay to be satisfactory. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo appellate order.
The Tribunal held that since tax was determined under Section 115JB and the amount was disclosed in the profit and loss account and depreciation chart, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A are not sustainable if they are not based on any incriminating material found during the search operation. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that electrical fittings are an inextricable part of plant and machinery and cannot be used without them. Therefore, additional depreciation was rightly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to cost-plus remuneration, not a commission-based model, aligning with the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the Li & Fung case. The assessee's markup of 15.36% was found to be within the arm's length range.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee followed the cash system of accounting, and the amount was correctly accounted for on a receipt basis.