Loading ITAT cases…
238 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable because it failed to specify whether the assessee concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars. It also noted that the addition was based on evidence not accepted as correct, not necessarily concealment.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn by the assessees. This was based on the assessees' decision to opt for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, with the condition that appeals could be revived if settlement benefits were denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if scheme benefits are denied.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee retains the option to seek revival of the case if the settlement benefit is denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on fixed deposits and loans by the assessee company during its pre-commencement period is to be treated as 'income from other sources' and not as a capital receipt. The issue of set-off of this interest income against business losses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessees' decision to opt for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was subject to the condition that the assessees could seek revival of the cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of their cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the re-opening under Section 147/148 was justified as the difference between the SRO value and the sale price constituted tangible material. However, regarding the Section 50C addition, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the nature of the asset (agricultural land) was crucial and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after referring to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the registered valuer's valuation of Rs. 21.90 lakhs was not supported by rational or logical explanation, especially considering the property was purchased for a much lower amount just 14 months prior. The AO's reference to the DVO for valuation was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessee's request due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the re-opening under Section 147/148 was justified as the difference between the SRO value and the sale price constituted tangible material. However, regarding the Section 50C addition, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the nature of the asset (agricultural land) was crucial and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after referring to the DVO.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessees' decision to opt for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was subject to the condition that the assessees could seek revival of their cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessees had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. However, it allowed the assessees to seek revival of their cases if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal found that the 8% estimation was improbable and that the Revenue had not proven the basis for this rate. Consequently, the estimation was reduced to 6%.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and paid the due taxes. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee chose to settle the matter under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can revive the appeal if the settlement benefit is denied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessee's request due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessees' decision to opt for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was made with the condition that the cases could be revived if the settlement benefit was denied for technical reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn upon the assessee's request due to opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.
The tribunal restored the issue of TDS disallowance to the Assessing Officer to examine it in light of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The issue of unsecured loans was also restored to the AO for detailed factual verification. The disallowance on car hire charges was restricted to 4%.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the lack of proper opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, with a warning to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek reinstatement if the scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the payees were assessed for the impugned financial charges, considering the retrospective effect of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee did not press the ground regarding disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh under 'other' expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to direct the AO for verification of expenditures and deleting additions related to prior period expenditure. It also held that Section 40(a)(ia) does not apply in cases of short deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. The Revenue also conceded to this request.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme and the Revenue's representative conceded to the request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings themselves were not sustainable. This was because the very reasons used for reopening the assessment had previously been found by the Tribunal not to give rise to any escaped income.
The Tribunal held that it is not necessary for the assessee to prove the debt is irrecoverable; it is sufficient if it is written off in the accounts. Following the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Limited vs. CIT, the disallowance was set aside.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) to re-examine the material required for registration. The assessee was directed to furnish the necessary evidence.
The tribunal restored the issue of TDS disallowance to the Assessing Officer to examine it in light of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The issue of unsecured loans was also restored to the AO for detailed factual verification. The disallowance on car hire charges was restricted to 4%.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and relevant case laws, directing the deletion of additions made on account of anonymous donations.
The Tribunal held that a confessional statement without documentary proof is not sufficient for an addition. It also noted that the assessee had sufficient cash balances to explain the deposits. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 26 crores was deleted, and the addition of Rs. 2.39 crores was upheld based on sufficient cash balance.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not provided with adverse material or an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The issue was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal, following a High Court decision, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal with liberty to restore it if the Vivad Se Viswas scheme outcome is not in their favour.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-estimate the profit on civil contracts at 8% on direct contracts and 3% on sub-contracts. The issue of long-term capital gains was remitted back to the AO for ascertaining the correct purchase value. The addition on account of unexplained cash credit was confirmed. The addition of interest income was partly allowed, directing recalculation. The addition on account of unexplained jewellery was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, acknowledging their decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that the assessee could approach the Tribunal to reinstate the appeal if their Vivad Se Vishwas application was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's revision order. It found that the valuation report was signed by the company's auditor, violating Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, making the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without confirming service of hearing notices. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not taken steps to pursue the appeal or intimate a change of address. Therefore, the Tribunal presumed the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, leading to an ex-parte order. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that ex-parte orders were passed without adequate opportunity. While acknowledging the Revenue's point about non-appearance, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that ex-parte orders were passed without adequate opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not sustainable for the assessment years in question, as the relevant statutory provision for such levy came into effect later. The Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate the same.
The Tribunal held that the land was not a capital asset as per the unamended provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) because there was no notification from the Central Government specifying the area for urbanization. Therefore, the addition of long-term capital gains was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) is mandatory, even if not requested by the assessee. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can seek revival if the scheme benefit is denied.