Loading ITAT cases…
458 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that, following the Rajasthan High Court's interpretation of CBDT Instruction No. 1916, jewellery up to 500 gms per married lady given during marriage cannot be questioned regarding its source. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the books of account were properly maintained and their rejection by the AO was not justified. However, certain expenses were not properly supported, warranting disallowance, which was upheld to the extent sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO had the jurisdiction to make the disallowance under Section 14A, even without specific incriminating material for that issue, as other incriminating material was found during the search. The CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance with modifications was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO had the jurisdiction to make the disallowance under Section 14A, even without specific incriminating material for that issue, as other incriminating material was found during the search. The CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance with modifications was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the letter of surrender, made long after the search and not under oath, could not be used as evidence against the assessee. The non-encashment of cheques further supported the assessee's contention that the surrender was not accepted by the department.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in disregarding the taxpayer's segmental results and using entity-level margins for transfer pricing analysis. Segmental results, even if unaudited, should be considered if maintained in the ordinary course of business.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with statutory notices constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalties imposed were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with statutory notices constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalties imposed were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner (ACIT) granted approval for reopening the assessment in a mechanical manner without applying their mind. This lack of proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority renders the reassessment invalid.
The Tribunal held that a bank statement or passbook cannot be treated as books of account maintained by the assessee. Therefore, cash credits in such statements do not fall within the ambit of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, as the same facts were available during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the payments are not taxable as royalty under the India-Netherlands DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision. The Tribunal also held that the payments do not qualify as Fee for Technical Services (FTS), again following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with statutory notices was due to a reasonable cause, specifically the director's judicial custody and a large volume of work. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in the absence of any objection from the revenue.
The Tribunal held that if the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. Therefore, the penalties levied were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that if the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. Therefore, the penalties levied were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income has been earned during the year. The CIT(A) correctly followed the binding precedent of the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the bank statements were supporting evidence, not additional evidence, and were correctly admitted by the CIT(A). Therefore, there was no violation of Section 269T, and the penalty was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made full disclosure of all material facts regarding the claim. Merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when the AO himself allowed a part of the expenditure as revenue. Therefore, the penalty for concealment of income was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had the jurisdiction to make the disallowance under Section 14A, even without specific incriminating material for that issue, as other incriminating material was found during the search. The CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance with modifications was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO had the jurisdiction to make the disallowance under Section 14A, even without specific incriminating material for that issue, as other incriminating material was found during the search. The CIT(A)'s direction to recompute the disallowance with modifications was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with statutory notices was due to a reasonable cause, specifically the director's judicial custody and a large volume of work. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12A, the CIT is primarily required to examine the objects of the society and not the application of income or the genuineness of activities carried out. The CIT was not justified in rejecting the claim for registration based on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made full disclosure of all material facts regarding the claim. Merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when the AO himself allowed a part of the expenditure as revenue. Therefore, the penalty for concealment of income was deleted.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper service of notice. Following the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty, stating that the assessee had disclosed all particulars and the issue was debatable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited, holding that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company, due to amalgamation, is not tenable. Following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court, such an order is considered void and cannot be cured by the assessee's participation in the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding sundry creditors, commission expenses, and household expenditure. The CIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, nor did the CIT conduct independent inquiries.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income, confirmed the deletion of club expenses as business expenditure, and allowed the deletion of disallowances for PF and ESI contributions paid before the return filing due date. The appeal regarding Section 80G deduction was also dismissed.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision for the assessment year 2012-13, where a similar disallowance was deleted. The Tribunal found that the interest expenses were directly linked to the business of the assessee and were allowable.
The Tribunal, following a previous identical decision, held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 10(10) for gratuity and leave encashment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside on this issue.
The Tribunal found that the lender's creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction were not adequately established, especially given the lender's nil income and the questionable nature of the source companies. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rental income from the terrace floor is to be treated as 'income from house property' as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, adding the entire amount was not sustainable. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The enhancement on account of commission was confirmed, but the addition for understated GP was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with statutory notices was due to a reasonable cause, specifically the director's judicial custody and a large volume of work. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.