Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 2 of 12
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal regarding the invalidity of Section 148 notices were not purely legal and required factual investigation, thus dismissing them. However, acknowledging the potential issue with the notice address and the assessee's lack of opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and penalty orders to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's application.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned. It also confirmed that income from carbon credit sales is a capital receipt and not taxable, aligning with previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. were deleted by the ITAT based on evidence of genuine purchases, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee were not sustainable. Therefore, the additions made by the CIT(A) on account of alleged commission/brokerage were not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, an appeal pending before the Tribunal is deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate by the designated authority. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal regarding the invalidity of Section 148 notices were not purely legal and required factual investigation, thus dismissing them. However, acknowledging the potential issue with the notice address and the assessee's lack of opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and penalty orders to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion without any new material. The assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and the AO had applied his mind to them.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal regarding the invalidity of Section 148 notices were not purely legal and required factual investigation, thus dismissing them. However, acknowledging the potential issue with the notice address and the assessee's lack of opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and penalty orders to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,01,317/- should be reconsidered by the CIT(A) allowing the assessee an opportunity to establish payments made to certain builders. The addition of Rs. 16,82,836/- was set aside due to violation of natural justice, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A). The 10% disallowance of expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being part of the searched group, had the onus to prove the validity of share capital. The CIT(A) erred in presuming innocence and not giving due weight to the AO's findings based on seized documents.
The Tribunal held that the core issue is whether the assessee is a kachha arahtia or pacca arahtia, which determines if commission income or total purchases constitute the turnover. To ascertain this, the matter was remanded to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid, even if there were minor factual inaccuracies in the reasons recorded, given the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to file a return. The approval for reopening was also found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the amounts deposited in bank accounts were likely from agricultural activities, and the foreign currency deposit receipt did not establish undisclosed income of the assessee. The expense details were considered practice entries on accounting software.
The Tribunal held that the amounts deposited in bank accounts were likely from agricultural activities, and the foreign currency deposit receipt did not establish undisclosed income of the assessee. The expense details were considered practice entries on accounting software.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as no incriminating material was found during the search to support the additions for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 had already attained finality.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting as a commission agent for Mother Dairy, and only the commission earned constituted the assessee's income, not the gross turnover. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect. It found that the assessee had provided details of freight payments and that the specific amendment to Section 194C(6) requiring declarations from lorry owners was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was quashed, the penalty itself does not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the netting of interest expenses should be allowed and referred the matter back to the AO for re-computation. It also directed that the assessee be given due opportunity before any action is taken regarding disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee is entitled to compute taxable income as per the Act.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was warranted. It noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds exceeding the investment in capital assets and that the leased assets were considered put to use.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under section 68 by not proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the investor. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The CIT(A) allowed a portion of the claim based on Form 16A for payments made to one company, while confirming the disallowance for the remaining amount where TDS was not deducted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal agreed that the entire deposited amount could not be treated as income. It found that the peak balance, considering withdrawals and sales, was Rs. 3,45,200/-, and restricted the addition to this amount.
The Tribunal held that while weighted deduction for revenue expenditure was not permissible under Section 35(2AB) as it was not approved by DSIR, the assessee was entitled to claim normal deduction for these expenses under other provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the quantum dispute and the penalty imposed does not survive. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of J Forms (receipts from Market Committee) showing sale proceeds of agricultural produce. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of this new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were unsustainable as the 'Bayana' document, which formed the basis for reassessment, was never confronted to the assessees, violating the principles of natural justice. The First Appellate Authority also failed to address this grievance.
The Tribunal held that since the addition itself was deleted and had attained finality, the penalty levied on that addition could not survive. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any error in the CIT(A)'s findings or provide material to set aside the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide any material to contradict the CIT(A)'s finding and relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the quantum dispute and the penalty imposed does not survive. The assessee requested the appeal to be treated as withdrawn, which the Revenue did not dispute.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were unsustainable as the 'Bayana' document, which formed the basis for reassessment, was never confronted to the assessees, violating the principles of natural justice. The First Appellate Authority also failed to address this grievance.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify similar expenditure allowed in the preceding year and decide the issue based on case laws. It also directed that if the expenditure is treated as capital, depreciation should be considered, and if assets were put to use in a later year, depreciation should be allowed for that year.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including previous years' allowance of the deduction and various certificates. Therefore, the rationale for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IC was not affirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received orders under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for full and final settlement. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim the balance additional depreciation in the succeeding assessment year, even prior to the legislative amendment. The amendment was considered clarificatory in nature, supporting the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation and exempt from tax, distinguishing it from interest under Section 34. The addition for unexplained capital was also deleted due to reconciliation.
The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty because the addition on which it was based had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no subsisting addition to sustain the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions, upon which the penalty was levied, had been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty could not survive independently. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the Commissioner (Appeals) can proceed ex parte for non-compliance, Section 250 mandates deciding the appeal on merits. Since the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that in the absence of incriminating material found during search, additions cannot be made to a completed assessment. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, indicating a full and final settlement. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs. 17,09,000/-, Rs. 22,80,000/-, and Rs. 10,00,000/- were explained. However, the deposits of Rs. 4,20,000/- and Rs. 8,24,000/- were not substantiated by evidence.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on the crane should be allowed as its existence and use in business were confirmed by the AO's own inspector in a subsequent year. The disallowance of employees' PF contribution was also deleted as it was remitted before the due date for filing the return of income.