Loading ITAT cases…
93 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the income surrendered by the assessee did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per the Explanation to section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the income surrendered by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) does not fall within the definition of undisclosed income as per Explanation to section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Explanation to section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income did not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as contemplated in Explanation to section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable and was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of income surrendered during a search if no incriminating documents were found and the surrendered income was accepted in the assessment. The penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per the Explanation to Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the income surrendered by the assessee did not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per the Explanation to Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of income surrendered during search and declared in a revised return, especially when no incriminating documents were found and the surrendered income was accepted by the AO without further additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of income surrendered during a search, especially when no incriminating documents were found and the surrendered income was accepted in the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary, to be imposed on merits. Following previous decisions, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of income surrendered during a search, especially when no incriminating documents were found and the surrendered income was accepted by the AO without further additions. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that the surrendered income was already declared in the original return, albeit claimed as exempt. The Tribunal upheld this, stating that penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of a statement without corroborating incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of a statement made during a search if no incriminating documents were found and the surrendered income was accepted in the return filed under Section 153A without further additions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary, to be imposed on merits after considering the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under section 271AAB.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire balance amount was not sustainable as the payment was eventually made. However, the value of the purchase consideration needed to be determined by factoring in the element of interest for the delayed payment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made an effective compliance with the provisions of Section 271AAB(1)(a) as the amount was deposited with the department before filing the return and the assessee had a bonafide belief that it was towards tax liability. Therefore, the penalty under clause (c) was not justified.
The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the addition. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal is hearing the assessee's appeal against the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The specific details of the valuation and the grounds for the addition are not fully elaborated in the provided snippet.
The Tribunal held that EPF & ESI paid before the return filing due date cannot be disallowed, citing jurisdictional High Court precedents. For unverifiable expenses, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance for telephone expenses but restricted the disallowance to 5% for vehicle repair, office, and conveyance expenses.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 3.00 lacs loan transaction was fully supported by evidence, including banking channels and cross-verification. However, the addition of Rs. 36,000/- on account of household expenses was confirmed due to lack of contrary material.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance, supported by an affidavit and medical certificate. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by producing the six parties who confirmed the transactions and their sources of funds. The AO and CIT(A) failed to provide contrary evidence. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,10,00,208/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that compliance with Section 194C(6) regarding transporters furnishing their PANs is sufficient to avoid disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) are independent, and non-compliance with Section 194C(7) does not automatically attract disallowance if Section 194C(6) is satisfied.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of reasonable cause for non-appearance due to medical reasons and the non-receipt of notice. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's findings regarding diversion of funds for personal purposes and non-genuine activities were not substantiated. The issues related to the purchase of land were also found to be in contravention of Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's findings regarding diversion of funds for personal purposes and non-genuine activities were not substantiated. The issues related to the purchase of land were also found to be in contravention of Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the trading addition was ad-hoc and not based on past history or specific defects. It also found the disallowances on telephone, conveyance, car maintenance, labour, staff welfare, and office expenses to be ad-hoc and unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income cannot be disallowed. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court have ruled in favour of the assessee on this issue.
The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected, income should be assessed on a best judgment basis. However, the AO's estimation of GP rate on unverified purchases was incorrect. The assessee's declared GP rate, being better than previous years, should be accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing an explanation corroborated by the statement of Rajendra Kumar Sain. The source of funds for Rajendra Kumar Sain was also explained as sale proceeds of agricultural land.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's claim under Section 158A, agreeing that the issue of taxability of interest on MACT claims is pending before the Supreme Court. The AO is directed to apply the Supreme Court's decision once pronounced.
The Tribunal held that the delay in completing the tax audit was due to the delay in the statutory audit, which constitutes a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal deleted additions for general expenses and motor car expenses, finding them petty or verifiable. For stores & spares and traveling expenses, the Tribunal upheld the partial disallowance made by the CIT(A) in one assessment year and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order in another.
The Tribunal held that the absence of a specific dissolution clause in the trust deed should not be the sole ground for rejecting registration, especially when the trust's genuineness is established and other laws provide safeguards. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal deleted additions for general expenses and motor car expenses, finding them petty or verifiable. For stores & spares and traveling expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance, considering the nature of expenses and the assessee's failure to provide adequate evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of inadvertence was not bonafide as the audit report was not in existence at the time of filing the original return. The revised return was filed only after the AO pointed out the omission, and the AO correctly treated it as invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO's show cause notice for penalty was vague as it did not specify whether it was for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the claim for exemption was bonafide and based on primary facts, thus not attracting penalty provisions.
The Tribunal held that since the earlier ITAT order had attained finality and no fresh additions were made under Section 153A, the issues already adjudicated could not be reopened. However, the AO was directed to recompute sustained disallowances/additions by applying the percentage from AY 2007-08 to the total claim for the years under appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to client code modification, finding no error in the order. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 14A, stating that the assessee's regular investment activities necessitated such disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the pending assessment proceedings abated due to the search and seizure action under Section 132, as per the second proviso to Section 153A(1). Therefore, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was non-est, and the CIT(A)'s order also became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the earlier ITAT order had attained finality and no fresh additions were made under Section 153A, the issues already adjudicated could not be reopened. However, the AO was directed to recompute sustained disallowances/additions by applying the percentage from AY 2007-08 to the total claim for the years under appeal.
The Tribunal deleted the trading addition by noting an increase in GP rate and found the issue academic. For the loan addition, the matter was set aside to the AO for further examination of the creditors.