Loading ITAT cases…
103 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of net profit at 10% was arbitrary without basis, and deleted the addition. However, the disallowance of partner remuneration was upheld as it was not in accordance with the partnership deed and Section 40(b)(v).
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb under Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was proposed. Furthermore, even if the additions were sustained, the assessee's explanation for cash credits was considered bonafide, thus not warranting penalty.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the present appeals fall under this category, they are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fee under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of fee for the period prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that since 19 out of 36 persons confirmed the transactions, the source of receipts to the extent of Rs. 3,41,150/- was satisfactorily explained. However, for the remaining persons, the explanation was not found satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO but did not provide findings on the merits after considering the additional evidence and the remand report. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition. The assessee failed to provide evidence of registration or approval for the donee institution and did not intimate the competent authority about the asset transfer.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the Rs. 20 lacs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that estimating the income was arbitrary as the assessee's books of accounts were not questioned. The addition was deleted except for the disallowance of Section 80C deductions.
The Tribunal held that the delay in completing the statutory audit constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the tax audit report. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that while the payment was made in violation of Section 11(5), if it was not claimed as an application of income for the year, the addition made by the AO had no basis. The matter was set aside to the AO to verify this.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were not validly initiated as the AO failed to specify the charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the assessment order and show-cause notice. Furthermore, the additions made by the AO were based on differing interpretations of facts rather than concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was not satisfactory and that the transaction appeared to be orchestrated by Shri D.R. Meena. The matter was set aside for further investigation by the AO.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in the appeal was below the Rs. 20 lacs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to produce its books of accounts and supporting vouchers before the AO for verification. The matter was set aside to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not examine the various documents submitted by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases and the subsequent export of goods. Due to confusion regarding the creditors' addresses and non-consideration of evidence, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee (concealment or inaccurate particulars). This indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently substantiated the creditworthiness of the loan creditor through her income returns, balance sheets, and bank statements. The Tribunal found no basis for the addition made under Section 68.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the assessee's specific plea regarding the retrospective applicability of provisos to Section 201(1) and Section 206C(6A), which state that an assessee cannot be held in default if the purchasers have accounted for the purchases and paid taxes. Therefore, the issue was remitted back for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had paid the tax on the surrendered income prior to filing the return and the amount was reflected in the books of accounts, the mere non-inclusion in the return due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed/withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. This lack of specificity was considered a non-application of mind by the AO, rendering the penalty illegal.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148, the failure to supply the recorded reasons to the assessee, despite specific requests during the reassessment proceedings, vitiated the proceedings. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and other High Courts, which emphasize the mandatory requirement of furnishing reasons to the assessee when sought for, to enable them to file objections. The Tribunal noted that this failure to comply with the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements rendered the reassessment proceedings liable to be set aside. Consequently, the other grounds raised by the assessee regarding unrealized rent/arrears of rent became academic and were not adjudicated upon. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that withdrawals from the credit card account and salary account sufficiently explained the deposits. The ad-hoc disallowance of 1/3 of the total deposit was found to be without basis.
The Tribunal noted that similar claims were allowed in earlier cases, but due to factual discrepancies like the assessee showing the funds as investment and crediting accrued interest to P&L, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the claim for premium paid for a policy taken from LIC for Employees Group Leave Encashment Scheme is allowable expenditure. However, the AO needs to verify if any income accrued on the policy was actually received or was just an accounting treatment.
The Tribunal held that the ITO, Ward-4, Bharatpur, lacked the valid jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 as the assessees' jurisdictional Assessing Officers were in Delhi and Allahabad. The Revenue failed to provide any order transferring jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment orders were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE(2) disallowing set-off of losses is prospective from AY 2017-18. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, current year business losses could be set off against income assessed under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order suffered from a lack of proper inquiry, particularly regarding the allowability of interest expenditure under Section 57(iii). The Principal CIT was therefore justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order suffered from a lack of proper inquiry, particularly regarding the allowability of interest expenditure under Section 57(iii). The Principal CIT was therefore justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order suffered from a lack of proper inquiry concerning the allowability of interest expenditure under Section 57(iii). Therefore, the Principal CIT rightly invoked Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancy was due to incomplete details and an inadvertent mistake by the assessee, not concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the entire interest income was subjected to TDS, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal considered the appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Exemptions). The CIT had rejected the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(vi).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the remand report and the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The circular directed that such appeals should not be filed or should be withdrawn.