Loading ITAT cases…
39 orders · Page 1 of 1
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 found that the assessee had sufficient working capital and own funds to provide interest-free advances. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was considered a conscious decision based on facts, and the Pr.CIT's order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that the AO had not pointed out any defects in the books of accounts and that the filing of the return in the wrong form did not disentitle the assessee from claiming rightful expenditure. No part of the expenditure was found to be bogus or ungenuine.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborative incriminating material. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was affirmed.
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.
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.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 1.5% on sales, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this point. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions for most creditors, except for an amount from Abhishek Tiwari, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
The tribunal acknowledged that the appeal had become infructuous due to a subsequent order under Section 154. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was time-barred. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid to directors and shareholders was for commercial expediency and in the interest of business. It found no evidence of tax evasion, as both the company and the recipients paid taxes at the maximum rate.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid to directors and shareholders was for commercial expediency and in the interest of business. It found no evidence of tax evasion, as both the company and the recipients paid taxes at the maximum rate.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid to directors and shareholders was for commercial expediency and in the interest of business. It found no evidence of tax evasion, as both the company and the recipients paid taxes at the maximum rate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the addition, finding that the loose papers related to a joint project and the assessee's share was only 15%, not the entire transaction amount.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal de novo after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the additions were made without sufficient corroborative material or proper opportunity for the assessee. The cross-objections regarding certain expenses and stock were partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to various grounds raised by the assessee regarding the valuation of the property and cost of construction for capital gains calculation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because it was issued in the individual capacity of the deceased assessee, while the approval for reassessment and the assessment order itself were in the capacity of the legal heir. Section 292B could not cure this fundamental error.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously submitted evidence of Section 12A registration in an earlier assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence for the cash deposits and the advance from the sale of a plot. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.