Loading ITAT cases…
45 tribunal orders from the Jabalpur bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 45 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the gratuity funds were managed by third parties like LIC, not the assessee. Since the money had irrevocably gone out of the assessee's hands for the benefit of employees, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that since no shares were sold during the assessment year, no capital gain or loss could arise. The source of investment was accepted by the Assessing Officer, and the entire purchase was for two assessment years, with sales occurring in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on the creditors' income tax returns to assess creditworthiness was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the credits were largely explained by the creditors' existing capital and/or current income, subject to verification of certain claims.
The Tribunal held that passing an order before the scheduled hearing date violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the capital contribution from the government was in the nature of equity or share capital, not a subsidy, grant, or reimbursement for meeting the cost of assets. Therefore, Section 43(1) and Explanation 10 were not applicable, and the depreciation claim was valid.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax accepted the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and issued Form-3. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The learned DR had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO had the power to levy the fee for delay in filing the TDS return under Section 200A(c), as amended by the Finance Act, 2015. Since the TDS return was filed belatedly, the assessee was liable to pay the fee.
The Tribunal held that if assessment proceedings are pending on the date of receipt of search material, they abate, and a consolidated order under Section 153C should be passed. Since the AO could not produce the search material and the assessment proceedings were pending, the order passed under Section 143(3) was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that there cannot be two different fair market values for the same property as of 01.04.1981. Consistency in valuation is important, and since the brother's declared value was accepted, the assessee's value should also not be disturbed.
The Tribunal held that profit cannot be estimated if the books of account are not rejected. Since the AO accepted the books and no defects were found, the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the book results and making an addition.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not enable the Assessing Officer to levy fee under Section 234E before June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, effective from June 1, 2015, was necessary to allow such a levy during the processing of TDS statements.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not enable the Assessing Officer to levy fee under Section 234E before June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, effective from June 1, 2015, was necessary to allow such a levy during the processing of TDS statements.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A did not enable the Assessing Officer to levy fee under Section 234E before June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A, effective from June 1, 2015, was necessary to allow such a levy during the processing of TDS statements.
The Tribunal held that the property was 'received' by the assessee during the financial year 2012-13 (relevant to AY 2013-14) and not in the financial year 2013-14 (relevant to AY 2014-15). The Tribunal relied on the principle of de facto ownership recognized in CIT vs. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. and CIT vs. Mormasji Mancharji Vaid. It was reasoned that Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act recognizes a de facto transfer on the execution of the agreement, leading to de facto ownership. The execution of the sale deed on March 30, 2013, where both parties fulfilled their part of the contract, constituted a de facto transfer and receipt of the property. While legal ownership is complete on registration (April 24, 2013), the de facto transfer and receipt occurred earlier. Therefore, the taxable event under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) took place in AY 2013-14. For that year, the law did not bring the short consideration to tax, only receipt without consideration. Consequently, the Revenue's action in invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for AY 2014-15 was not sustainable. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for cost of improvement was unproved and unexamined, and the AO had acted with haste without due application of mind. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the revisionary order.
The Tribunal held that once the section 263 order is quashed, the consequent assessment order is without basis in law. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was a regular assessment under Section 143(3) and not under Section 153C. It further held that the Pr. CIT's direction to examine other aspects was valid, as a limited scrutiny assessment does not preclude the AO from expanding the scope of inquiry if warranted, and the Pr. CIT's order was upheld to the extent it related to the non-disclosure of income surrendered regarding investment in property.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed in limine as not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed in limine as not maintainable.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as they were satisfied with the reassessment order. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities misunderstood the facts, particularly regarding the project sanction dates and locations. The addition was based on a wrong appreciation of facts and was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's scope of enquiry in a limited scrutiny case is restricted to the specific issues for which the case was selected. The PCIT could not direct the AO to examine issues beyond the original scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on travel expenditure, finding no factual basis for the Revenue's claims. However, it upheld a disallowance on vehicle repair & running expenses, acknowledging the possibility of personal use by directors/employees.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not fully examine the transactions related to associate concerns and the adequacy of consideration. The Tribunal found the facts indeterminate and directed further examination.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable before it due to being below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect and dismissed it as withdrawn. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's cross-objection against the consequential order of the AO was not maintainable without first approaching the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that while the AO had called for details of bank loans, the assessment order did not reflect an application of mind to the material provided. Therefore, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The third member held that the selection of the assessee's return for scrutiny was compliant with CBDT procedures. He also held that the income returned as agricultural income should be assessed as such, not as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions and the delay in receiving the adjournment application. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order, not being on merits, was unsustainable. The matter was set aside with a nominal cost imposed on the assessee, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found fault with both parties, noting the assessee's responsibility to prosecute the appeal and the Revenue's obligation to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The CIT(A)'s order was also found to be non-compliant with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that a proper opportunity of hearing is essential for judicial proceedings and the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable in law as the notice was not served. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in stock quantities were not reconcilable and did not warrant any addition to income. The alleged excess stock was considered notional, and the orders of the Revenue authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in stock quantities were not reconcilable and did not warrant any addition to income. The alleged excess stock was considered notional, and the orders of the Revenue authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in stock quantities were not reconcilable and did not warrant any addition to income. The alleged excess stock was considered notional, and the orders of the Revenue authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in stock quantities were not reconcilable and did not warrant any addition to income. The alleged excess stock was considered notional, and the orders of the Revenue authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness and capacity of the creditors for the Rs. 3 lacs cash credit were not satisfactorily explained, the addition should be restricted to Rs. 2,79,000, as the balance Rs. 21,000 was sourced from the assessee's cash book. The estimation of income for liquor and transport businesses was upheld.