Loading ITAT cases…
57 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied on undisclosed investment in land and construction of a house was not sustainable as it did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' for Section 271AAB. However, the penalty on undisclosed stock of jewellery was sustained.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was negligent in appearing, the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal noted that the manual appeal was filed in time but the assessee failed to comply with the direction to file it electronically. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically within one month and for the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal held that if the amount was deposited by a friend for his own purpose of participating in tenders and not as a loan to the assessee, it would not fall under the ambit of Section 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E were not justified.
The tribunal held that the retrospective payment of director's remuneration was allowable as it was supported by a board resolution and the director had rendered services. The disallowance of audit fees was confirmed for the current year but allowed in the year of actual payment. The notional interest on deposits was deleted due to commercial expediency and sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that if the amount was deposited by a friend for his own purpose of participating in tenders and not as a loan to the assessee, it would not fall under the ambit of Section 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E were not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding loading/unloading expenses and office expenses, dismissing the Revenue's grounds. For vehicle expenses, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that depreciation and other expenses were allowable if the vehicles were used for business purposes, even if registered in directors' names. The disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the AO for determination as per Rule 8D.