Loading ITAT cases…
455 orders · Page 8 of 10
The tribunal decided that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was granted liberty to pray for recall of the order if serious about pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided extensive documentation for the advances received. Despite directions for further verification, no substantial adverse material was found to justify the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided extensive documentation for the advances received. Despite directions for further verification, no substantial adverse material was found to justify the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the sundry creditors were genuine as they were repaid in subsequent years. The Tribunal also agreed that Section 40A(3) was not violated as no single-day cash payment exceeded Rs. 20,000. Finally, the disallowance of notional interest on old debtors was also found unjustified.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard at the correct address.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAA is leviable only when a search has been initiated under Section 132 of the Act. Since only a survey was conducted, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on the car should be allowed as the transfer of ownership was effected only on 02/11/2010 as per the Motor Licensing Officer's records, and the assessee was the owner for the relevant period. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal upheld disallowances up to 10% of the total, excluding any items disallowed twice, and directed the AO to re-examine the details.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as an agent, collected deposits on behalf of its principals. Since the penalties were levied on a protective basis and the principal had a reasonable cause, the penalties on the agent were not sustainable.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to grant an appropriate working capital adjustment to the assessee. It also held that the amount paid for the use of sublicense software packages was revenue expenditure, following the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates not filing or withdrawing appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000/-. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was given multiple opportunities, the CIT(A) did not explicitly address the written submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the alternate prayer of the assessee before the CIT(A) regarding the peak cash credit addition was not adjudicated upon. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh speaking order.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had granted telescoping benefit for cash withdrawals and deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after confronting the assessee with the proposed disallowance.
The Tribunal held that affidavits, though self-serving, should not be summarily discarded without discussion. It also noted that bank statements, while manually maintained, could potentially be obtained. The issue of property sale cost also lacked proper discussion. Therefore, both issues were restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by enhancing income without issuing a show cause notice and by not providing a speaking order with cogent findings on whether the bank transactions related to business. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and following established precedents, presumed the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the credit balance in question appeared to be an opening balance and not a credit during the year under consideration. Therefore, Section 68 might not be applicable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the opening balance.
The Tribunal found that the tax authorities had not adequately addressed the business activities of the assessee and the reasons for its cessation. The assessee also failed to provide evidence to support its claim that the 26AS entry did not pertain to it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that mere passing of book entries which were reversed would not give rise to an obligation to deduct tax at source, as there was no acknowledged debt. The decision followed the Delhi High Court's ruling in DIT vs. Ericsson Communication Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was contradictory regarding the filing of written submissions and failed to discuss or address the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the order was set aside as it was a non-speaking order.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to admit fresh evidence, obtain a remand report from the AO, and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law because the AO did not allege that the assessee failed to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced a Pollution Control Board Certificate before the CIT(A), which was not considered. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the First Appellate Authority for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that rental income from commercial properties, in line with the company's objects, is business income. It also confirmed that expenses related to business property and additions to fixed assets, properly explained through related party transactions, are allowable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to present their case and that the authorities below failed to consider the details and submissions provided. Therefore, the assessment was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 140A(3) does not provide for penalty, and penalty should have been levied under Section 221, if at all. It also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case for 'good and sufficient reasons' for the delay in payment. Following its own earlier decision, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench, which allowed similar exemptions for employees of the same university. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption for arrears of gratuity and leave encashment.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the AO made inquiries behind the assessee's back without proper investigation. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence and that the AO's rejection of books of accounts and estimation of GP were not sustainable. The deletion of additions on account of unconfirmed creditors was also upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence and obtained remand reports, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and explanations to substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal held that when purchases are accepted and details of the party's identity and transaction genuineness are provided, an addition under Section 68 is not sustainable. The addition was deleted as similar details had led to deletion in another case.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance and set aside the order of the lower appellate authority. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper examination of evidence.
The tribunal deleted disallowances related to payments to contractors where no amount was outstanding as of the due date, or where PAN was provided, or payments were below the threshold for TDS. Disallowances for legal and professional charges where no amount was due were also deleted, while other professional charges were set aside for AO verification. The DVAT issue was also set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the source of expenditure and did not produce books of accounts, bills, and vouchers. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of lost records and FIR filing to be an afterthought, indicating manipulation.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years was not permissible as the reasons recorded did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The alleged escapement of income was due to the non-application of a legal provision, not a lack of disclosure.
The Tribunal found that the AO had telephonically adjourned the case to a later date, but proceeded to make an ex-parte assessment mentioning non-compliance on an earlier date. The CIT(A) also failed to deal with the additional evidence. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that education is per se a charitable object and that the CIT erred in rejecting the registration application. The Tribunal noted that the decisions relied upon by the CIT had been reversed by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be expected to trace a builder who has closed his business, especially when the builder had a valid TIN. The Tribunal also noted that crucial evidence like the site plan and completion certificate was not properly considered.