Loading ITAT cases…
52 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash, including amounts belonging to relatives and his wife, and the remaining cash in hand was supported by a cash flow statement and bank withdrawals. Therefore, the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the impugned cases did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. In view of Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue was not supposed to press the appeals.
The Tribunal found a defect in the CIT(A)'s order as the AO had rejected books and applied a net profit rate, not disallowed specific expenses. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This lack of specificity violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash found in the locker by providing details of their past savings and income. The decision to keep cash in a locker for a specific purpose like a daughter's marriage was a personal choice and not a valid ground for disallowing the explanation.
The tribunal held that since the original assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside by the ITAT, the penalty order cannot survive. Furthermore, a subsequent assessment order passed after the ITAT's remand did not make any additions.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if no exempt income is received or receivable during the previous year. Since the assessee earned no dividend income, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not the owner of the property, the income derived from the leased and sub-letted property could not be considered as income from house property. The CIT(A)'s decision to treat it as income from other sources was upheld.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had properly examined the bank account and the nature of the assessee's business to make a peak addition.
The Tribunal decided several grounds of appeal. Some additions were deleted based on prior decisions or lack of proper working by the AO. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed, while some were allowed for statistical purposes, requiring fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal decided several grounds of appeal. Some additions were deleted based on prior decisions or lack of proper working by the AO. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed, while some were allowed for statistical purposes, requiring fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal decided several grounds of appeal. Some additions were deleted based on prior decisions or lack of proper working by the AO. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed, while some were allowed for statistical purposes, requiring fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal decided several grounds of appeal. Some additions were deleted based on prior decisions or lack of proper working by the AO. Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed, while some were allowed for statistical purposes, requiring fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The assessee's appeals were allowed on the grounds of procedural irregularity.
The Tribunal found that for trade advances, the AO should have considered both debit and credit entries on the same date, and based on net balances, no addition was warranted. For share application money from one party, the Tribunal found the director's statement and supporting documents sufficient to prove the transaction's genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of a transaction must be decided based on surrounding circumstances. The assessee failed to provide a logical explanation for selling shares back at a significantly lower price, thus failing to dispel suspicion.
The Tribunal held that while a statement under Section 132(4) has evidentiary value, additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of such a statement without corroborating material. Since the revenue failed to provide such material, the deletion by the CIT(A) was affirmed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of prior period expenses to the AO for verification, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s order on other related claims and restored them to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that depreciation at 30% is allowable on assets ready for use in the hiring business, irrespective of actual hiring income in the specific year. The reopening of assessment was rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that while a statement under Section 132(4) has evidentiary value, additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of such a statement without corroborating material. Since the revenue failed to provide such material, the deletion by the CIT(A) was affirmed.
The Tribunal found that for trade advances, the AO should have considered both debit and credit entries on the same date, and based on net balances, no addition was warranted. For share application money from one party, the Tribunal found the director's statement and supporting documents sufficient to prove the transaction's genuineness.
The Tribunal found that for trade advances, the AO should have considered both debit and credit entries on the same date, and based on net balances, no addition was warranted. For share application money from one party, the Tribunal found the director's statement and supporting documents sufficient to prove the transaction's genuineness.
The Tribunal held that an additional ground regarding registration under Section 12AA and its retrospective benefit, which was not raised before the CIT(A), needs to be adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to disproportionate expenses and low household withdrawals, stating the AO's estimations lacked proper reasoning. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding excess stock declarations, as no additions were made by the AO and the assessees did not demonstrate grievance.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to disproportionate expenses and low household withdrawals, stating the AO's estimations lacked proper reasoning. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding excess stock declarations, as no additions were made by the AO and the assessees did not demonstrate grievance.
The Tribunal held that the amount surrendered during a survey is not conclusive and can be explained. The assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the stock difference, substantiating their claim that the book stock was not correctly calculated at the time of the survey.
The Tribunal held that the amount surrendered during a survey is not conclusive and can be explained. The assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the stock difference, substantiating their claim that the book stock was not correctly calculated at the time of the survey.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA, the CIT should primarily examine the objects of the institution and the genuineness of its activities, not the application of funds. The CIT's rejection based on fund accumulation was contrary to established legal precedents.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) accepted that the expenditure was explained, making an ad hoc addition on estimation basis was unjustified. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal accepted a declaration in Form No.8, restoring the issue of Section 80P deduction to the Assessing Officer to await the outcome of the assessee's own case pending before the High Court. The issue of 'other expenditure' was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal accepted a declaration in Form No.8, restoring the issue of Section 80P deduction to the Assessing Officer to await the outcome of the assessee's own case pending before the High Court. The issue of 'other expenditure' was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed the order on merits, which was not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1000/-.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not passed the order on merits, which was not justified. The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in adopting the DVO's report for market value. It also confirmed the allowance of exemption under Section 54F, noting that the assessee had deposited and utilized funds from the capital gains account within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2008-09, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not applicable as the assessee had already disallowed net interest expenditure. However, a disallowance of Rs. 7,22,648/- was sustained under Rule 8D(2)(iii). For AY 2011-12, a disallowance of Rs. 7,50,000/- was sustained under Rule 8D(2)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the plot was a capital asset, not stock-in-trade, and no business activity was carried out on it. Therefore, the gain from its sale should be taxed as long-term capital gain.
The Tribunal held that if the deductee has paid the tax on the income received, the deductor should not be penalized for short deduction, following the Apex Court's decision. Therefore, the disallowance for Rs. 9,97,515/- was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, holding that the diversion tax was an allowable business expenditure, especially since the AO himself accepted it was for land used for business purposes. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings and reliance on judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and the factual nature of the issues raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeals to the file of the AO for a fresh and in-depth examination, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's age, marital status, family status, and the prevailing customs of gifting jewellery, the entire addition sustained by the CIT(A) was unjustified. The Tribunal deleted the remaining addition for unexplained gold jewellery and silver articles.
The Tribunal held that after April 1, 1989, it is sufficient if the bad debt is written off in the assessee's accounts. Following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. TRF Limited, the AO was directed to allow the claim.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and found it relevant to the issues. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue. It upheld the deletion of additions related to purchases and car expenses, but restored the AO's disallowance on discount expenses.