Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 11 of 13
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, directing the assessee to appear on a specific date. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, directing the assessee to appear on a specific date. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully disclosed all facts to the AO, and the issue of treating interest earned on borrowed funds was debatable. Therefore, it could not be said that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance due to hospitalization of family members. Therefore, the penalties imposed were not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the penalty. It noted that the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by the Tribunal itself in a prior order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with certain notices, citing the judicial custody of the group head and the large number of simultaneous group assessments. Furthermore, the quantum demand was reduced to 'nil', indicating the non-compliance was technical and venial.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision on identical facts for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal held that the project expenses were incurred for the furtherance of the assessee's enterprise and were not capital in nature.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the provision for bad and doubtful debts is an amount set aside as provision for diminution in the value of an asset. Therefore, it should be added back to the net profit for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The ITAT restored the issue of disallowance on statutory liabilities to the AO for fresh verification due to discrepancies and lack of evidence. However, the disallowance on salary was sustained as the assessee failed to produce justification despite the assessment being made under Section 144.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the pecuniary limit for appeals has statutory force and is binding on revenue authorities. The appeal was dismissed based on the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.