Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified due to non-furnishing of books, the rate of profit estimation should be reasonable and based on facts. Following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate net profit at 3% of the cost of goods sold.
The Tribunal found that while there were minor discrepancies in voucher numbers, the description and quantum of payments matched between the cash book and ledger. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified, and the expenditure claimed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A/153C can only be made based on seized material, not on information already available in the return of income. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration, with directions to admit and examine fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A/153C can only be made based on seized material, not on information already available in the return of income. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make the additions.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. It remanded the issue to the AO to reconsider the matter de novo, including the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of proper opportunity. While acknowledging that the CIT(A) had posted the case on multiple occasions and the assessee had filed written submissions, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration of the foreign exchange gain/loss issue, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence. The appeals concerning additional depreciation were also remanded for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. It remanded the issue to the AO to reconsider the matter de novo, including the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration of the foreign exchange gain/loss issue, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence. The appeals concerning additional depreciation were also remanded for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration of the foreign exchange gain/loss issue, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence. The appeals concerning additional depreciation were also remanded for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration of the foreign exchange gain/loss issue, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence. The appeals concerning additional depreciation were also remanded for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee's submission that proper opportunities were not provided. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee's submission that proper opportunities were not provided. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that appeals against consequential orders passed under Section 154 of the Act are appealable before the CIT(A) and not directly before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that appeals against consequential orders passed under Section 154 of the Act are appealable before the CIT(A) and not directly before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that appeals against consequential orders passed under Section 154 of the Act are appealable before the CIT(A) and not directly before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loan transactions were made through banks, loan amounts were repaid, and creditors' identities were established. The Tribunal also ruled that short-term capital loss can only be set off against capital gains, not business income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to admit fresh evidence and pass an order on merit.
The Tribunal held that appeals against consequential orders passed under Section 154 of the Act are appealable before the CIT(A) and not directly before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on receivables is covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It directed the TPO to allow a credit period of 90 days or the industry average and compute interest on the deviation. The Tribunal also upheld the use of SBI short-term deposit rates for interest calculation.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee's submission that proper opportunities were not provided. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that appeals against consequential orders passed under Section 154 of the Act are appealable before the CIT(A) and not directly before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that mobilization advance received in AY 2013-14 should not be recognized as revenue if the work was not completed. The addition made for AY 2013-14 was not warranted as the amount was correctly recognized as revenue in AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that mobilization advance received in AY 2013-14 should not be recognized as revenue if the work was not completed. The addition made for AY 2013-14 was not warranted as the amount was correctly recognized as revenue in AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine reasons provided by the assessee. The quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were both remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and remanded the issues to the AO for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant details to the AO within one month.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the AO's computation of profit was erroneous and there was no profit from the foreign exchange transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the omission to include interest income was an inadvertent oversight, not a wilful act of concealment. The penalty was deemed unjustified as the omission was unintentional and the return was accepted without additions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea for an opportunity to be heard, despite the revenue's contention of sufficient opportunities being provided. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration after issuing a written notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's right in the property constituted a capital asset. However, it directed the AO to recompute the capital gains by allowing Rs. 10 lakhs towards legal and watch and ward expenses incurred by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was confirmed to be below the statutory limit. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the low tax effect as per the relevant CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. This was to allow the AO to consider the additional grounds raised by the assessee for the first time regarding the reopening of the assessment.
The Tribunal found that the Valuation Officer did not properly consider the sale instances provided by the assessee. It directed the AO to recompute the capital gains by adopting a market value of Rs. 2,000 per sq. yard.
The Tribunal held that both the protective assessment and the substantive addition should be disposed of together by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a joint disposal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the genuine reasons provided by the assessee. The quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were both remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and remanded the issues to the AO for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant details to the AO within one month.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission for a fresh hearing. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that defaulted chit fund installments, while not strictly bad debts under Section 36(2), should be treated as a business loss under Section 28(1). For business promotion expenses, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence and remitted the issue back to the AO.
The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a property value of Rs. 30,00,000 and recompute the short-term capital gain, allowing previously accepted expenditures. However, the claims for vacating the premises (Rs. 9,50,000) and commission (Rs. 3,47,000) were not allowed as they were deemed unbelievable in relation to the sale consideration.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether interest income earned on funds temporarily placed in fixed deposits, which are linked to project development, is taxable or can be netted off against pre-operative expenses, is a debatable issue. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not established that the borrowed funds were used for acquiring specific assets. Considering the assessee's business activities, the interest expenditure was deemed allowable.
The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all documents. The penalty appeals were also remanded to be adjudicated after the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all documents. The penalty appeals were also remanded to be adjudicated after the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present documents to the CIT(A) for proper appreciation of facts. Therefore, both the quantum and penalty appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal remanded the quantum appeals back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to present all documents, and consequently, the penalty appeals were also remanded. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the cases on merits after the assessee files the details within one month.
The Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present all relevant documents. The penalty appeals were also remanded to be adjudicated after the quantum appeals.