Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the entire purchase amount could not be treated as income as the transactions were recorded in the books and paid through banking channels, with corresponding sales and gross profit accepted. It was deemed at best a case of suppressed gross profit.
The Tribunal held that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on compensation for agricultural land is a capital receipt and not taxable. The CIT(A) failed to consider the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Hari Singh.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the extended validity of the corrigendum PPO in light of a CBDT circular and afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the extended validity of the corrigendum PPO in light of a CBDT circular, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the extended validity of the corrigendum PPO in light of a CBDT circular, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that if the quantum additions are deleted, the penalty levied on those additions cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the outstanding balance was on account of continuous purchases from the sole supplier, Bo Concept, Denmark. Such transactions do not fall under the purview of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits with detailed reasons. Since no new material was presented to persuade the Tribunal to differ from the CIT(A)'s view, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's objections on merit. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in one appeal and, considering the death of the original assessee and the interest of justice, restored the issue to the AO. The AO was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contentions, citing High Court decisions that held the power to levy fee under Section 234E was not available prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the fee levied for the earlier assessment years was not valid.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the evidence provided by the assessee regarding rectification and rework. Therefore, this issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning Section 14A as the assessee earned no exempt income, following High Court precedents. For the interest on advances, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) due to irrelevant findings. Regarding GP differences, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete additions on EVA and wages, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that once it is undisputed that the amount received is from the sale of a capital asset, the income should be taxed under the head 'capital gains', not as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer must compute income in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide specific findings on why the expenditure was not for business purposes. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding non-compliance with Section 194C(7) was contrary to the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding non-compliance with Section 194C(7) was contrary to the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was void-ab-initio due to a defective notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, as it was issued on the same day the return was filed in response to a Section 148 notice, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 2.44 crores was part of the Rs. 4 crores surrendered and should not be added separately. The penalty proceedings were restored to the Assessing Officer to consider the penalty on the Rs. 4 crores offered.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective because the assessee failed to appear and did not remove defects in the appeal notice. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal again after rectifying the defects.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the levy of fees under Section 234E, was amended to include this power only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that when reassessment proceedings are initiated based on incriminating material found in a third-party search, Section 153C is applicable, excluding Section 147. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and proceedings under Section 147 were deemed illegal and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without deciding the matter on merit, despite a previous ITAT direction to re-decide. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence for the cash payment. The explanation of accumulated family savings was considered an afterthought and rejected based on human probabilities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order, which is not sustainable in law. Considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to set aside the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition made under Section 115BBC was set aside and remitted for fresh assessment by a separate ITAT order, the basis for imposing the penalty collapsed. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned notice under Section 148 vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings as it is a jurisdictional notice. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not assume jurisdiction to frame the assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment and the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to justify the entries or challenge the reopening.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was defective as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. This defect vitiated the AO's assumption of jurisdiction to levy the penalty.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, which sustained the disallowance on sundry creditors due to the assessee's failure to provide reconciliation and discharge the onus cast upon them. Similarly, a portion of the disallowance on sundry debtors was also sustained.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which empowers the levy of fees under Section 234E, was amended to include this power only from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of such fees for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal considered the written request from the assessee's counsel. In light of the assessee's request, the Tribunal decided to dismiss all the pending appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC as the manufactured product, Trichoderma Viride (a fungicide), was a prohibited item under Schedule XIII. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of business promotion expenses due to lack of substantiation and genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view based on the information available and prevailing law. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was unjustified.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw its appeals. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as it became infructuous due to the MAP settlement.