Loading ITAT cases…
92 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found the assessee's failure to maintain books of accounts irresponsible. However, it noted that the Revenue had not prudently estimated the expenditure to arrive at a net profit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh estimation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's fund position and the availability of non-interest-bearing funds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record that the assessee's taxable income had escaped assessment, which is a mandatory requirement for reopening. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's fund position and the availability of non-interest-bearing funds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the impugned disallowance was not sustainable. This was in light of the legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, and the CBDT's clarification that these amendments apply prospectively from 01.04.2021.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of capital asset occurred on the date of the registered development agreement in 2009, as possession was irrevocably handed over. Therefore, the long-term capital gains were taxable in AY 2009-10, and the protective addition made by the AO was restored.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of capital asset occurred on the date of the registered development agreement in 2009, as possession was irrevocably handed over. Therefore, the long-term capital gains were taxable in AY 2009-10, and the protective addition made by the AO was restored.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature and source of the cash deposits as gifts from close relatives. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies found by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that a voluntary disclosure of income made during a survey, without any incriminating material or discrepancies being unearthed by the revenue authorities, does not constitute concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's power to revise the order under Section 263 but found the Pr. CIT's specific direction lacking clarity. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue of depreciation on leasehold rights.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of Section 14A disallowance was incorrect as the assessee had derived exempt income, and thus restored this issue for fresh adjudication. The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of ESI/PF disallowance, considering legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications on prospective applicability.
The Tribunal held that the AO's conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny without PCIT approval was not sustainable. However, the AO's right to examine the issues forming the subject matter of limited scrutiny was not diluted.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the AO's estimation of income at 6% was not adequately justified, especially when industry norms and even small contractors under Section 44AD typically have higher profit estimations. The AO's order was also deemed not a 'speaking order'.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of third-party statements without corroborating evidence. It relied on its own previous decision in an identical case involving the same project.
The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was due to the ex-parte nature of the lower appellate order and the circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal, noting that similar issues for prior assessment years were remitted back to the Assessing Officer by a co-ordinate bench for de-novo consideration due to violation of principles of natural justice, restored the present appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to properly maintain books of accounts and reconcile transactions. However, considering the assessee's financial constraints and the request for another opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. This was because the legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, along with the CBDT's clarification, were applicable prospectively from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the legislative amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, and the CBDT's clarification that these apply prospectively from 01-04-2021, render the impugned disallowance unsustainable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's revision jurisdiction, finding that the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous due to a lack of factual verification regarding the tissue culture process. The assessee was given the liberty to raise all arguments before the Assessing Officer in consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies, inclusion of another, and set aside some computations for recalculation. Adjustments for working capital and interest on outstanding receivables were also addressed, and issues regarding credit for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) were remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and arguments. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of pre-commencement expenses, stating they must be capitalized. Regarding interest income, it was held that it should be taxed separately, but proportionate interest expenditure related to earning that income would be deductible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) relied on fresh evidence not produced before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration, allowing the assessee to submit fresh evidence and be given a sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies, inclusion of another, and set aside some computations for recalculation. Adjustments for working capital and interest on outstanding receivables were also addressed, and issues regarding credit for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) were remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the provision for leave encashment is an accrued liability and not a contingent one, following the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. The AO was directed to allow the deduction as per the Apex Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that if the PF contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employees' contributions to PF & ESI were remitted within the due date of filing the income tax return, the disallowance was not justified. The amendments clarifying the application of Section 43B to employee contributions were prospective.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and arguments. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if employees' PF contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance is warranted. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was not warranted, considering the assessee's declared income and explanation for the cash. It also directed the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 28,757 for leave encashment, as the Assessing Officer provided no justification.
The Tribunal found that while the AO disallowed the expenditure under Section 115JB, the AO did not cite specific provisions of the Companies Act to justify the disallowance. The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO cannot go behind the P&L account but also stated that an assessee cannot prepare it arbitrarily. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and the nature of additions, decided to remit both appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Revenue Authorities.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and the nature of additions, decided to remit both appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Revenue Authorities.