Loading ITAT cases…
77 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act have no evidentiary value for initiating reassessment. However, it upheld the use of State PWD rates for estimating construction costs, as per High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal addressed the grounds of appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1 (Section 68 addition), the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission of shareholder details and confirmations. However, it also acknowledged the AO's concerns about the adequacy of these details and the difficulty in verifying the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted confirmations and share certificates indicating transfers. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that when third-party material (like the GP rate of a comparable company) is used, the assessee must be given an opportunity to rebut it. Therefore, for Ground No. 3 (trading addition), the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to disclose details of M/s Seth Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and allow the assessee an opportunity to examine and rebut the information before deciding afresh. This ground was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 2 (RSEB disallowance) was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on Ground No. 1 is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome indicates a partial allowance.
The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the matter needed to be re-examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo decision.
The Tribunal restored the issues of trading addition and unsecured loans back to the CIT(A) for de novo decision, emphasizing the need for a fresh look and proper opportunity of hearing for both parties.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act have no evidentiary value for initiating reassessment. However, it upheld the use of State PWD rates for estimating construction costs, as per High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts was justified. While upholding the determination of unaccounted turnover, the Tribunal reduced the applicable GP rate to 12% based on the High Court's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and confirmed the existence of unaccounted turnover. However, it reduced the profit rate applied to the unaccounted turnover to 12%, aligning with a High Court decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that trade advances made for business considerations are not covered by Section 2(22)(e). Regarding the disallowance of interest expenses, the Tribunal ruled that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, it is presumed that interest-free advances are made from such funds.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment based on information that income had escaped assessment. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of bogus purchases was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion by the AO without any new material. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the case and applied the principle that laws assist the vigilant. Therefore, the appeals were treated as not admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the entire purchases should not have been disallowed, a portion of it as estimated income on unverifiable purchases would be sufficient. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the case and applied the principle that laws assist the vigilant. Consequently, the appeals were treated as not admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by the Tribunal itself and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier years, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by the Tribunal itself and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier years, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by the Tribunal itself and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier years, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by the Tribunal itself and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier years, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The verification date on the appeal memo (December 19, 2016) contradicted the assessee's claim of only realizing the non-filing in March 2017.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not vitiated due to non-service of notice, but deleted the addition of Rs. 24,81,500/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was not relevant as it was already considered. The Tribunal agreed that the AO was justified in making the addition based on the available facts.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by the Tribunal itself and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in earlier years, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect, excluding education cess, was below the Rs. 10 lacs threshold. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
The Tribunal held that once bad debts are written off in the books of account and the conditions of Section 36(2) are satisfied, the claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) cannot be denied. The decision to write off debts cannot be questioned if it's an honest decision and not merely a tax avoidance device.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) in reassessment proceedings, prior to finalizing the order, is fatal and cannot be condoned by Section 292BB. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold was not a capital asset as per the definition in Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to the amendment in 2014. Therefore, capital gains tax was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that even if the cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained, the capital gain would be attracted by taking the cost of acquisition as the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold was not a capital asset as per the definition in Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to the amendment in 2014. Therefore, capital gains tax was not leviable.