Loading ITAT cases…
411 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the first appellate order, finding the reopening proceedings invalid due to improper approval under Section 151. This irregularity was deemed not curable under Section 292BB.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search and no assessment was pending. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the wood work was done after the sale and that the sales returns were already declared as income, thus preventing double addition. Both grounds of appeal by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to higher depreciation on moulds as long as they are owned by the assessee and used for business purposes, irrespective of whether they are used in the assessee's factory or a vendor's factory. The Tribunal also held that trial run expenses incurred for introducing new models as part of existing business are revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without clear evidence of proper service of hearing notices. Following the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem'), the case was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the assessee had provided proof (bill of lading) showing the local entities were agents of foreign shipping companies. The disallowance was deleted based on a precedent.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as no dividend income was earned. Regarding interest disallowance, the Tribunal followed its own order for the preceding year and allowed the assessee's contention.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to higher depreciation on moulds as long as they are owned by the assessee and used for business purposes, irrespective of whether they are used in the assessee's factory or a vendor's factory. The Tribunal also held that trial run expenses incurred for introducing new models as part of existing business are revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed.
The tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the case.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not possess the power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to higher depreciation on moulds as long as they are owned by the assessee and used for business purposes, irrespective of whether they are used in the assessee's factory or a vendor's factory. The Tribunal also held that trial run expenses incurred for introducing new models as part of existing business are revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 was bad in law. The reasons recorded by the AO were found to be vague, lacking tangible material, and not based on an independent application of mind, thus vitiating the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), agreeing that the cash deposits should be treated as business receipts and taxed at a prescribed profit rate. The Tribunal found it reasonable to estimate the taxable income at 8% of the gross receipts, considering the assessee was a part-time businesswoman with some supporting bills.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of account but found the AO's estimation of net profit at 6% to be excessive. Considering the assessee's past profit ratios, the Tribunal deemed the disclosed income to be fair.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that the advances were not income, supported by accounting standards. Therefore, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, making the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the proceedings were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to higher depreciation on moulds as long as they are owned by the assessee and used for business purposes, irrespective of whether they are used in the assessee's factory or a vendor's factory. The Tribunal also held that trial run expenses incurred for introducing new models as part of existing business are revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the surrender was conditional and the AO did not honor the condition of not levying penalty. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and evidence for cash deposits, which were not controverted by the AO.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs was inextricably linked with the process of setting up the appellant's business and was therefore a capital receipt, not taxable income. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the conversion of a protective addition to a substantive addition by the CIT(A) was not justified as it lacked proper inquiry and consideration of facts. It also noted a potential for double addition, as the cash deposits might have been included in the business turnover.
The Tribunal held that the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were not a result of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was imposed on subjective satisfaction without fulfilling the necessary ingredients for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation and lack of adjournment requests. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the facts were not clear as the MOU was not furnished to the AO and details of services rendered were not sought. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the lack of representation and failure to cure defects. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of ownership of the property was restored to the AO in a previous related appeal. Therefore, the current appeal's outcome depends on the AO's findings regarding ownership and sources.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not mention whether the notice for hearing was served on the assessee. Citing the principle of 'Audi Alteram Partem', the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served in accordance with the prescribed procedure, making the assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments regarding proper service by affixture.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions related to peak investment and estimated profit as the revenue failed to establish the assessee's benami ownership of the firms and relied on suspicion. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of telephone expenses and sales tax penalty, considering them as legitimate business expenses.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribes a pecuniary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a pecuniary limit for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to allege that the assessee had not disclosed material facts fully and truly. Additionally, the notice for reopening was not served on the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of cash deposits, finding that the CIT(A) had sustained it based on surmises without pointing out defects in the evidence. It also deleted ad-hoc additions for trading results and disallowed expenses, citing the settled law that such additions are unsustainable without specific findings. Finally, it allowed the deduction under Chapter VI-A as the amounts were paid through banking channels.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the Assessee's cross-objection. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the trading addition and that the addition for cash advance was not sustainable without cross-examination. However, the disallowance of director's remuneration was upheld.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee does not maintain books of account, as a bank passbook is not considered the assessee's book. The addition was also found unsustainable on the ground of peak credit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as no tax was liable to be deducted on interest paid to a banking concern, which falls under the exception provided in Section 194A(3)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.