Loading ITAT cases…
766 tribunal orders from the Indore bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 766 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed the AO to delete additions related to certain debtors and land purchase, and also deleted additions made to the wife's savings account. However, some additions were sustained.
The Tribunal held that the income declared under IDS 2016 for AY 2013-14 could be used to explain the source of the bogus LTCG claimed in AY 2014-15, as there was a nexus between the declared income and the subsequent transactions. The addition made by the AO was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on profits and gains attributable to its business activities, including those related to bad debts and commission payments.
The ITAT directed the AO to allow prior period expenses in the year they were incurred if legally permissible. The disallowance of electricity and rates/taxes expenses were upheld. The travelling expenses issue was restored to the AO for verification of the purpose of the trip to Japan.
The Tribunal held that disallowance for non-deduction of TDS is not warranted if the deductee has disclosed the income and paid taxes, following Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions. However, ad-hoc disallowances for unsubstantiated expenses were upheld as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the AIR, as evidenced by extensive correspondence regarding technical integration issues. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271FA was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unrecorded stock was not justified as the assessee had provided a reasonable explanation and offered the actual unrecorded stock to tax. The addition for lower net profit was also deleted as the Assessing Officer failed to consider the increased depreciation expenses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had changed his stance regarding the source of funds. However, it also acknowledged that the assessee had provided documentary evidence of remittances from his brother, who was a co-owner. The lower authorities had not adequately addressed the source of funds claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective and not clarificatory. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective and not clarificatory. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed by the assessee were not substantiated with proper evidence. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective and not clarificatory. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed by the assessee were not substantiated and therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was justified. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the levy of fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, was prospective and not clarificatory. Therefore, late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements processed before June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The amendment to Section 10(10D) was prospective and not applicable to the assignments made before its effective date.
The Tribunal held that the loans were not genuine and thus taxable as unexplained cash credits. It also upheld the imposition of penalties for concealment of income, finding that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the loans.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. All issues raised on merits were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. All issues raised on merits were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The amendment to Section 10(10D) was prospective and not applicable to the assignments made before its effective date.
The Tribunal held that the loans were not genuine and thus taxable as unexplained cash credits. It also upheld the imposition of penalties for concealment of income, finding that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the loans.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of the loans and that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified. However, the Tribunal found that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable in the absence of specific findings regarding concealment of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The AO had himself recorded statements on oath from the creditors, and the revenue had failed to rebut the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the loans were not genuine and thus taxable as unexplained cash credits. It also upheld the imposition of penalties for concealment of income, finding that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the loans.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses related to commission paid to agents was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. However, the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses related to commission paid to agents was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. However, the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the claim for accumulation under Section 11(2) was rightly rejected due to non-compliance with prescribed forms and faulty resolutions. However, following the Delhi High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).
The tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The assessees intended to apply for compounding in the matters.
The tribunal allowed the assessees' request for withdrawal of their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's remand report suggested allowing Rs. 6.25 lakhs as a gift from the father, acknowledging the sale proceeds of property received in cash in the previous year. The CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate this report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and it cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable because it filed a single appeal challenging the deletion of two separate penalties. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to file separate appeals within the prescribed time, excluding the period of the current proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied was already deleted by a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case, the penalty cannot stand. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing, which is against natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing, which is against natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, which is against natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of the evidence collected from M/s. Lumbi Pumps Pvt. Ltd., violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all material facts. The Tribunal noted that statements made during a survey have no evidentiary value without supporting material.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) vs. ACIT. However, grounds related to the reopening of assessment were dismissed as they were not raised before the CIT(A). The addition made for non-deduction of tax at source was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals and cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.