Loading ITAT cases…
44 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to furnish supporting documents for their deduction claim. The matter was set aside and restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to furnish supporting documents for their deduction claim. The matter was set aside and restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the employees' PF contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had reconciled the job work receipts with supporting documents, justifying the deletion of that addition.
The Tribunal held that the premium paid for hedging exchange fluctuation risk was allowable as interest under Section 2(28A) or as a business expenditure under Section 37. Regarding the closing stock valuation, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to follow the method applied in earlier years, which involved adjusting purchases, opening stock, and sales along with closing stock as per Section 145A.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE, which disallows set off of losses, was prospective and applicable from AY 2017-18. Therefore, for AY 2013-14, the set off of business loss against the additional income was permissible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not fully applied his mind to the applicability of Section 50C during the original assessment, thus reassessment was not solely based on a change of opinion. However, the issue of whether the transfer was completed in FY 2006-07 or 2007-08 remained unexamined.
The Tribunal held that transactions in physical form alone do not automatically render them bogus or indicate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The AO did not make sufficient efforts to inquire about the genuineness of the broker notes.
The tribunal dismissed the grounds related to insufficient opportunity and the assessment order being bad in law. The additions for unexplained cash deposit and interest were upheld as the assessee failed to provide contrary evidence. However, the penalty order was quashed due to the AO's failure to specify the charge for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on suppressed sales is taxable and confirmed the addition of net profit at 8% on total sales, following past consistent views. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for plot booking cancellations and payments to a state government undertaking.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the submissions and relevant documents. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had provided details like balance sheets and Form 20B for the sale of shares.
The tribunal dismissed the grounds related to insufficient opportunity and the assessment order being bad in law. The additions for unexplained cash deposit and interest were upheld as the assessee failed to provide contrary evidence. However, the penalty order was quashed due to the AO's failure to specify the charge for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the premium paid for hedging exchange fluctuation risk was allowable as interest under Section 2(28A) or as a business expenditure under Section 37. Regarding the closing stock valuation, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to follow the method applied in earlier years, which involved adjusting purchases, opening stock, and sales along with closing stock as per Section 145A.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on suppressed sales is taxable and confirmed the addition of net profit at 8% on total sales, following past consistent views. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for plot booking cancellations and payments to a state government undertaking.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on suppressed sales is taxable and confirmed the addition of net profit at 8% on total sales, following past consistent views. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for plot booking cancellations and payments to a state government undertaking.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on suppressed sales is taxable and confirmed the addition of net profit at 8% on total sales, following past consistent views. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for plot booking cancellations and payments to a state government undertaking.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on suppressed sales is taxable and confirmed the addition of net profit at 8% on total sales, following past consistent views. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for plot booking cancellations and payments to a state government undertaking.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on suppressed sales is taxable and confirmed the addition of net profit at 8% on total sales, following past consistent views. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for plot booking cancellations and payments to a state government undertaking.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on suppressed sales is taxable and confirmed the addition of net profit at 8% on total sales, following past consistent views. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for plot booking cancellations and payments to a state government undertaking.
The Tribunal held that the employees' PF contribution deposited before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction, following Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had reconciled the job work receipts with supporting documents, justifying the deletion of that addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate efforts towards constructing the residential house within the three-year period from the sale of the original asset. The application for consolidation and construction was made significantly after the statutory deadline.
For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's revision under Section 263, finding the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to late TDS deposit. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of books of accounts and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue revolves around when a transfer of immovable property is considered to have taken place for tax purposes, particularly when the sale deed is presented for registration, full consideration is paid, and possession is handed over, but the registration process is delayed due to stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal referred to the decision in DCIT, Circle-9 Kolkata vs. M/s. Bagrees Investments Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1335/Kol/2011), where a similar issue led to the restoration of the matter to the AO pending a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal also considered the Supreme Court's observation in CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini regarding 'de facto' transfer. However, distinguishing the facts from the Balbir Singh Maini case, the Tribunal found that the specific scenario of delayed registration due to stamp duty valuation, despite payment and possession, was critical. Citing the Calcutta High Court's decision in Bagri Impex (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which was stayed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to set aside the assessment order and restore the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after the outcome of the Bagri Impex case pending before the Supreme Court.
For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's revision under Section 263, finding the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to late TDS deposit. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of books of accounts and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the law was amended after the return was filed. The claim for deduction was made based on the law in force at the time of filing the return.
For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's revision under Section 263, finding the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to late TDS deposit. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of books of accounts and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in treating the share transaction as sham. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including contract notes and bank statements, to prove the genuineness of the purchase and sale.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications as premature. Relying on a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, the Tribunal found that applications could be filed even before April 1st of the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal set aside both issues to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to admit additional evidence, verify the receipt of alleged unaccounted sales, and re-examine the nature of the sundry creditors.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention of a mistake ought to have been verified and rebutted by the authorities below. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification of the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal remitted both disallowances back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, it directed verification if payees had already offered the income to tax. For the Section 43B disallowance, it directed verification of actual payment of service tax and provident fund.
The Tribunal held that the appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely if the assessee is not interested in pursuing it. The Tribunal cited several judicial pronouncements supporting the dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal allowed the explanation for Rs. 12,31,000/- deposited in the Dena Bank account as it pertained to the sale of property by the assessee's father. For the Axis Bank deposits, the Tribunal treated them as business receipts and taxed only the profit element at 20%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the Section 80IA deduction as they had opted for the correct assessment year and that the taxes paid under Section 43B were deductible as they were actually paid during the year, irrespective of accounting treatment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications as premature. Relying on a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, the Tribunal found that applications could be filed even before April 1st of the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on advances from customers, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and documentary evidence. The Tribunal also sustained the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance of expenses.