Loading ITAT cases…
524 orders · Page 5 of 11
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove that the sundry creditors were bogus. Therefore, it declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT under Section 14 of the IBC, all proceedings against the assessee, including the present appeal, cannot continue. This is due to the overriding effect of the IBC over other laws.
The Tribunal held that the liability was subsisting as it was not written back in the books of account and the assessee had not received any benefit by way of remission or cessation. Therefore, Section 41(1) was not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 7,35,000/- as unexplained income. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to explain the source of the demand draft.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Section 40A(3), unexplained income, and a cash receipt. However, for the issue of bogus purchases, the Tribunal found the assessee had not discharged the onus and remanded the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is warranted as the assessee had sufficient own non-interest bearing funds. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance should be computed considering only investments yielding dividend income, and the AO was directed to verify the assessee's computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden under Section 68 by rebutting the suspicious circumstances raised by the AO. Transactions through a DMAT account or on a stock exchange were not sufficient evidence to rebut the findings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of the cash deposits, considering his age, agricultural background, and the provided year-wise summary of cash withdrawals, deposits, and utilization. The explanation offered was deemed satisfactory.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to re-examine the issue and grant credit for the taxes paid, provided the AO is satisfied about the appropriate recovery of tax and takes safeguards against misuse.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the delay and the absence of a condonation petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were between two units of a single entity due to amalgamation. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T were not violated, and no penalty was leviable.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 274 must specifically state the grounds for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c). An omnibus notice is vague and bad in law, as per various High Court judgments.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were between two units of a single entity due to amalgamation. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T were not violated, and no penalty was leviable.
The Tribunal found that the additions were made in the assessee's name with the wrong PAN. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is applicable from the date of share allotment, not from the date of receiving share application money. It also held that the assessee has the option to choose the valuation method for unquoted shares, and the AO cannot arbitrarily reject it without proving its incorrectness.
The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy under TUFS was a capital receipt, as its objective was to encourage capital investment for technology upgradation. However, the issue of how the subsidy was utilized needed verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy under TUFS was a capital receipt, as its objective was to encourage capital investment for technology upgradation. However, the issue of how the subsidy was utilized needed verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following its own order in the assessee's brother's case. This was to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and establish that the land was not converted to non-agricultural purposes.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is an allowable claim, especially when supported by expert reports and judicial precedents. The valuation of goodwill, even if based on projections, cannot be challenged merely because future performance did not match those projections.
The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly noted that the late deposit of PF contribution was already suo moto disallowed by the assessee and then disallowed again by the CPC, leading to a double disallowance. No fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings was pointed out by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E is not leviable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fee.
The Tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E is not leviable for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not getting his accounts audited initially, as he was under the bonafide belief that Section 44AB was inapplicable. The penalty imposed under Section 271B was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions if the expenses are booked and TDS is deducted in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. The practice of reversing provisions and deducting TDS later is acceptable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without proper opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an 'assessee in default' for non-deduction of TDS on year-end provisions if the expenses are booked and TDS is deducted in the subsequent year upon receipt of invoices. The practice of reversing provisions and deducting TDS later is acceptable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that dividend income derived by a cooperative society from another cooperative society is fully exempt under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' share of ESI/PF contributions is justified. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case, which emphasizes timely deposit as a condition for deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the purchases made by Orient Craft Ltd. from the assessee were genuine, as previously decided in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. Therefore, the additions made in the hands of the assessee were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the purchases made by Orient Craft Ltd. from the assessee were genuine, as previously decided in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. Therefore, the additions made in the hands of the assessee were not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC for late deposit. The issue is no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT.
Since the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on account of this addition does not survive. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the assessee's contentions regarding the Section 80JJAA deduction and the adjustment to book profit, providing adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the purchases made by Orient Craft Ltd. from the assessee were genuine, as previously decided in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. Therefore, the additions made in the hands of the assessee were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits through bank withdrawals and a cash gift from his mother. The CIT(A)'s observation that there were no cash withdrawals was found to be factually incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully demonstrated the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence, including bank statements and cash flow charts. The pattern of deposits and withdrawals substantiated the explanation that the cash was part of a land sale advance refund.
The Tribunal held that the purchases made by Orient Craft Ltd. from the assessee were genuine, as previously decided in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. Therefore, the additions made in the hands of the assessee were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the Pr. CIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding that the assessee failed to rebut the Pr. CIT's findings regarding errors in the assessment. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner rejected the applications without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the issue needed re-examination by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh, including the TDS aspect, after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for denovo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish evidence. This was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, such as directors facing life threats and imprisonment, which prevented them from responding to notices.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner rejected the applications without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The orders were set aside and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that once TDS is deducted and paid to the government, credit should be allowed to the assessee, irrespective of whether the income is taxable in that year. The Tribunal followed a previous decision with identical facts.