Loading ITAT cases…
270 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal directed the AO to consider voluntary donations (not for corpus fund) as application for charitable purposes. Any excess expenditure or deficit of income is permitted to be carried forward as application of income in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly considered the cash payments as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the payments were reflected in the ledger account of Mrs. Kumkum Kanodia and were explained as payments made by her to Haryana Aukaf Board.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the cash credits. The Tribunal found that the depositors' identities, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions were not adequately established.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no justification for the Assessing Officer to deny exemption. It noted that the CIT(A) had previously allowed appeals for earlier years and that the DIT(E) had not taken action to withdraw registration for the current year.
The Tribunal followed its previous orders and High Court decisions, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding additions to book profits for various provisions. The issue of TDS credit was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification, and interest computation was deemed consequential.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no justification for the Assessing Officer to deny exemption. It noted that the CIT(A) had previously allowed appeals for earlier years and that the DIT(E) had not taken action to withdraw registration for the current year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the land still belonged to the assessee company and the promoters were the actual sellers of the shares. Therefore, a protective addition in the hands of the assessee company was not justified, especially when substantive additions were made in the hands of the promoters.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified, as the prior period expenses were allowable. The Tribunal also noted that even if disallowed, the addition would not result in any taxable income due to unabsorbed losses.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly considered the cash payments as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the payments were reflected in Mrs. Kumkum Kanodia's ledger account and she was also assessed to tax and subjected to search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the amount could not be taxed as salary income. This was further supported by a subsequent High Court order approving a settlement where the amount was to be returned as a loan.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals has statutory force and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed limit should not be pressed.
The Tribunal found that the DVO's report lacked authentic support from HUDA and did not value the building. The assessee's evidence of a conveyance deed in the same vicinity showed a much lower rate. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as they violated the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the revenue should not have filed the appeal. The circular mandates withdrawal or not pressing appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit.
The Tribunal found a contradiction in the dates of hearing and observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal. The instructions are applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposited cannot be treated as income without appreciating the nature of transactions. It found that the CIT(A) did not provide a basis for estimating income at 15%. The Tribunal decided that applying a 7% profit rate on gross receipts would be reasonable to work out the assessee's profit.