Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 10 of 12
The Tribunal held that income from a business centre is business income, not income from property. It also directed the AO to allow set-off and carry forward of business losses and allowed interest paid on business borrowings as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that if the basis for initiating penalty proceedings (the addition) is removed by a higher appellate authority, the penalty order cannot stand on its own. The penalty order is consequently cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided one more opportunity to the assessee to appear and defend its case. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the revised computation solely because a revised return was not filed, referencing a High Court decision that the Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze was confined to claims made before the AO, not appellate authorities. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the revised computation.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to refile if the tax effect exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the fact that the issues involved had been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified as the AO had made inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's explanations. The CIT could not simply ask for re-examination when the AO had already applied its mind.
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 accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a proper opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek recall if unforeseen circumstances arise.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the grounds raised regarding the assumption of jurisdiction and rejection of books of accounts. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were also upheld due to the assessee's failure to furnish cogent evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the grounds raised regarding the assumption of jurisdiction and rejection of books of accounts. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were also upheld due to the assessee's failure to furnish cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the AO, as it was based on incomplete information regarding the filing of the ITR. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to controvert the adverse material on record and did not provide cogent evidence to disturb the findings of the departmental authorities. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal agreed that the husband's business income and responsibility for household expenses meant cash given to the assessee should be considered. A deduction of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rs. 15,000 x 12) was allowed for household cash expenses.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted because the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and obtained a settlement certificate.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, stating that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty order, which was based on that addition, would not survive. The Revenue's appeal against the quantum addition to the High Court was noted as pending.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the grounds raised regarding the assumption of jurisdiction and rejection of books of accounts. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) were also upheld due to the assessee's failure to furnish cogent evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and had received the necessary form. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of cogent evidence to demonstrate that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to advance to the related party without charging interest, the assessee's claim could not be accepted. Therefore, the ground of appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal deleted the interest disallowance, citing the assessee's sufficient interest-free funds. It also directed the exclusion of unquoted equity shares from the average investment calculation for administrative expense disallowance, as they did not yield exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC to DGTCP, Haryana, which is a State Government department, is not subject to TDS deduction. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that Explanation 5 of Section 32(1) makes depreciation mandatory even if not claimed in the return. The WDV should be adjusted, and unabsorbed depreciation should be carried forward.
The Tribunal held that the issue and service of notice under Section 148 are jurisdictional requirements. Since the Assessing Officer himself noted that the notice was not served and returned, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was justified due to the lack of explanation from the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) erred in not admitting additional evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted as the assessee had settled the issue under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue had no objection.
The tribunal noted that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and the designated authority had issued Form 5. The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAA cannot be imposed if the assessee admits undisclosed income in a statement under section 132(4), specifies how it was derived, and pays the tax. Since the assessee offered the cash as income and paid tax, and the jewellery addition was deleted, the penalty was deleted.
The designated authority accepted the assessee's declaration and issued Form-5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This effectively resolved the dispute, leading to the appeal being deemed withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had received Form 5. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that issuing notices for reopening and assessment in the name of a deceased person is invalid and bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order passed pursuant to such invalid notices lacks legal sanctity and must be quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and the designated authority had issued Form 5. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide strong evidence to rebut the adverse materials regarding the penny stock nature of the company and price manipulation.
The Tribunal found the assessee's conduct questionable but, for the ends of justice, remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking proper reasoning, failing to address all grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that a reasonable cause existed for the assessee's failure to get accounts audited, as the declared turnover was below the threshold and the additions were settled under VSV. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the enhancement of income by the CIT(Appeals) was made without issuing a show cause notice, and thus directed the deletion of Rs. 35,673/-. However, the addition of Rs. 11,89,100/- was sustained as the assessee failed to provide material to controvert the Assessing Officer's findings based on investigation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish any cogent evidence before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) to demonstrate the correctness of the declared income. Since the assessee could not controvert the factual findings of the departmental authorities, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the penalty. This was because the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the ITAT in a prior order.
The Tribunal found that the AO's basis for increasing the percentage of salaries to be debited to the project cost was not specified. The CIT(A)'s order lacked proper application of mind, and the addition was based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that exempt income is immaterial is not legally sustainable. It also noted that the right of attribution of funds lies with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was based on surmises and conjectures. It noted that commission was allowed in earlier years without adverse inference and that a written agreement is not legally mandatory for commission expenses. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding res judicata and the onus on the AO to summon parties unsustainable.
The CIT(A) relied on the decision for a prior assessment year where similar facts were considered and accepted by both parties. The Tribunal found no new facts and saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and without following the mandate of Section 250(6) of the IT Act, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF/ESI made after the due date under the respective Acts but before the due date for filing the return of income is not sustainable. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs. Yukogawa India Ltd. It held that the deduction under Section 10A should be allowed after setting off losses from other eligible units, and that the AO's action was not in accordance with the ITAT's previous directions.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was granted because the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued Form No. 3.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. This was because the matter had attained finality with the CIT(A) deleting the addition, and the department had not appealed further.
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.