Loading ITAT cases…
158 tribunal orders from the Jabalpur bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 158 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of unexplained stock to Rs. 43,51,897/-, which was accepted by the assessee. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of Rs. 62,50,000/- of unexplained cash, as the assessee had surrendered this amount.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of unexplained stock to Rs. 43,51,897/-, which was accepted by the assessee. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of Rs. 62,50,000/- of unexplained cash, as the assessee had surrendered this amount.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. This was done to allow the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's submissions and provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing supporting evidence for the property purchase and unsecured loans, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of the Pr. CIT under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the creditors as bogus solely because notices returned unserved, especially since the assessee provided new addresses and had made payments to these creditors in earlier and current years. The addition would also lead to an unreasonably high profit margin.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the mandate of limited scrutiny by disallowing expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) instead of verifying sundry creditors. Regarding bogus expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided new addresses and made payments in earlier and upcoming years, thus the AO was not justified in treating creditors as bogus solely on unserved summons.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to bogus purchase expenses and difference in gross receipts. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's appeal regarding unexplained cash deposits, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s approach of adopting 8% net profit on total cash deposits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the gross profit on unrecorded transactions and the treatment of certain seized documents. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and its non-compliance nullifies the assessment order. The delay in filing the cross-objection was condoned due to the assessee's medical condition.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the gross profit on unrecorded transactions and the treatment of certain seized documents. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and its non-compliance nullifies the assessment order. The delay in filing the cross-objection was condoned due to the assessee's medical condition.
The Tribunal held that the case should be remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal found that the AO disallowed expenses without rejecting the books of account or invoking Section 145(3). The CIT(A)'s deletion was partly upheld, but the disallowance was further restricted to Rs. 2,00,000.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry, including issuing notices under sections 133(6) and 131, and obtaining relevant documentation. The PCIT failed to provide tangible evidence to prove the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the validity of an assessment. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the assessment order unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable as the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was also deemed unjustified due to lack of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following various High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the belated deposit of employees' contribution to EPF/ESI beyond the due date is not allowable as a deduction, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The issue of GST late fee was not explicitly decided in the provided text.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable as the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was also deemed unjustified due to lack of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted in the assessee's own case by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) no longer survived.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of interest, finding no diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. It also declined to interfere with the restricted disallowance of expenses, deeming it ad-hoc. For Section 43B, the Tribunal held that service tax is payable only upon receipt of consideration, and the assessee had paid the service tax and cess before the due date.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It reduced the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 6,000, directed a re-computation of short-term capital loss, and deleted the ad-hoc disallowance on business expenses, finding them to be reasonable and supported by books of account.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay constituted a reasonable cause. Considering the coordinate bench orders and the nature of the default as a technical breach, the penalty was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, which deals with the valuation of property for tax purposes, was not applicable as it came into effect from April 1, 2014 (AY 2014-15), while the agreement was executed prior to this date. Therefore, the revision order by the PCIT was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI, if not deposited on or before the due date as per the respective acts, cannot be allowed as a deduction. This is because these amounts are considered held in trust and are deemed income until deposited within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal held that the AO travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining prior approval as required by CBDT instructions. Therefore, the addition made on account of cash deposit was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited by the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) and Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, cannot be allowed as a deduction. This is because such amounts are considered income held in trust and must be deposited by the due date to be eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the loose paper clearly pertained to unaccounted cash business transactions. It directed the AO to determine the income as 6% gross profit on the unaccounted turnover of Rs. 24,00,000.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, agreeing that input VAT, eligible for set-off, should not be included in the valuation of inventory when an exclusive/net method is consistently followed.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices from the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that no addition is warranted in the absence of any tangible material found by the Revenue against the assessee. The assessee's evidence, including DMAT account statements and confirmations, indicated no transactions with the said company.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and bank statements, finding that amounts transferred from J.P. Gupta and G.L. Gupta were explained. It also considered a portion of the cash deposits as cash in hand available with the assessee, holding no addition was called for.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on most grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. However, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding disallowance of telephone and mobile expenses, reducing the confirmed disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made enquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's explanations regarding sundry creditors and capital gains. The Pr. CIT cannot substitute their opinion for the AO's when the AO has conducted proper inquiries.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A without corroborating evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on the survey statement was upheld, except for a partial confirmation of an addition related to office furniture.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C were invalid. This was based on the principle that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, completed assessments cannot be reassessed under Section 153A.