Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the issue of defective notice was not considered by the CIT(A) due to the ex parte order. Therefore, the ex parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making disallowances of expenses instead of estimating income under Section 144. For the Section 68 addition, the Tribunal found that discrepancies in loan creditor names due to cross-entries warranted further verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that since the addition itself, on which the penalty was based, had been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty had no basis to stand. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to conclusively establish the actual Rs. 15 crore loan transaction. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was not sustainable and was liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 based on a change of opinion on material already available during the original scrutiny assessment is not permissible and is without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the loan creditor sufficiently explained the source of funds and the creditworthiness, thus deleting the addition under Section 68. For expenses, the Tribunal upheld a 10% disallowance for personal use of vehicles and telephone, but deleted other ad-hoc disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the loan creditor sufficiently explained the source of funds and the creditworthiness, thus deleting the addition under Section 68. For expenses, the Tribunal upheld a 10% disallowance for personal use of vehicles and telephone, but deleted other ad-hoc disallowances.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in the calculation of disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) and (iii) after considering net interest and proportionate investment. For the second ground, the Tribunal agreed that the assessee's own capital and interest-free funds, along with rental and interest income, exceeded the disallowed interest, justifying the deletion.
The Tribunal noted a sharp decline in Net Profit (NP) and held that while previous ITAT rulings supported estimation based on average GP, the sharp NP decline warranted further examination. The issue was remitted to the AO to estimate income based on average past GP and independently examine the cause of NP decline.