Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal, in agreement with both parties, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This was based on a High Court order and the need for thorough investigation at the AO's level.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including bank statements of the brother and subsequent refund details, as they were essential for a proper examination. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings are not sustainable in law because the AO failed to furnish the reasons for reopening to the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal also noted that Section 292BB was incorrectly applied to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the assessment orders to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty imposed was also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to apply the peak credit theory, confirming an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- and deleting the balance. The Tribunal agreed that the peak credit principle is applicable to avoid multiple counting of the same sums in an account.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the assessment orders to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty imposed was also deleted.
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 The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A), stating that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry or gather evidence to disprove the assessee's documentation. The onus shifted to the AO after the assessee provided evidence like the sale agreement, and the AO's reliance on investigation reports without further verification was insufficient.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its responsibility regarding share application money and that interest on ICD is an allowable business expense. The addition on account of static creditors was also deleted based on High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not demonstrate dissatisfaction with the assessee's NIL disallowance. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the expenses claimed as prior period expenses were indeed incurred in the relevant year and had been consistently allowed in earlier and subsequent years, thus directing their deletion.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not demonstrate dissatisfaction with the assessee's NIL disallowance. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the expenses claimed as prior period expenses were indeed incurred in the relevant year and had been consistently allowed in earlier and subsequent years, thus directing their deletion.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the DIT(E) did not dispute the charitable nature of the objects and that receiving service charges from organizations for conducting programs does not automatically make the activity business. The Tribunal found the activities to be genuine based on the ledger accounts showing receipts from large companies and annexed reports and photographs of programs conducted.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was bad in law as the AO had not applied his mind to the evidence and had merely relied on a borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing's report.