Loading ITAT cases…
93 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that the original return was filed within the stipulated time was not substantiated by the record. The lower authorities correctly disallowed the losses as the return was filed belatedly.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO had conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view based on the available information, and the PCIT's action amounted to a change of opinion.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause. The issue of TCS liability was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification of Form 27C and purchaser's ledger to determine the legitimacy of the transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause. The issue of TCS liability was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification of Form 27C and purchaser's ledger to determine the legitimacy of the transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause. The issue of TCS liability was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification of Form 27C and purchaser's ledger to determine the legitimacy of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption from the date of application for registration, considering the legislative intent and the fact that the trust's activities remained the same. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was also relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption from the date of application for registration, considering the legislative intent and the fact that the trust's activities remained the same. The jurisdictional High Court's decision was also relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO had conducted inquiries and arrived at a judicious view based on the assessee's explanation, which the PCIT could not substitute. The assessment order was not deemed erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is a debatable issue, as evidenced by differing High Court judgments. Consequently, a rectification under Section 154 cannot be applied to such debatable issues.
The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation had several discrepancies compared to the assessee's registered valuer's report and the actual investment in books. Considering the registered valuer's report as a fair estimation and allowing for telescoping of surrendered income, no further addition was warranted for the year under consideration.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the non-compliance due to the death of the trustee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The assessee's authorized representative stated that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and requested to withdraw it. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the tax litigation was settled. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee provided confirmations with addresses, the onus shifted to the AO to verify. Since the AO did not conduct inquiries, the addition was deleted for most creditors.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted a copy of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to present all relevant details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Checkmate Service Pvt Ltd'. The disallowance for delayed payment of employee PF and ESI contributions was confirmed as valid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back for a fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA No. 53/Jodh/2019) deserved to be dismissed. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered the assessee's objections and directed the AO to provide sale instances, which were then commented upon by the assessee. The CIT(A) found that the sale instances cited by the AO were not comparable to the assessee's property, which was located in a prime commercial area, was a corner plot, and significantly larger than the comparable properties. The Tribunal also noted that the Sub-Registrar had informed that DLC rates were not applicable prior to 1992. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in PCIT Vs. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal (88 taxmann.com 306) where an approved valuer's report was considered as evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds raised by the revenue. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the technical ground raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction, relying on the decision in Abhishek Jain Vs. ITO (94 taxmann.com 355 Delhi). The Tribunal found no infirmity in this finding and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the assessee. The operative direction for the revenue's appeal was dismissal, and for the assessee's cross-objection was dismissal.
The Tribunal restored the disallowance of discount expenses to the AO for verification. Regarding the excess cash, the Tribunal found a lack of clarity and remitted the issue to the AO for examination of factual aspects, allowing the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were based on a mere change of opinion, as the same facts were available during the original scrutiny assessment. The AO had already estimated the net profit at 8% in the original assessment, and the interest income was disclosed separately. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore unwarranted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, upholding principles of natural justice.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that a defect in the penalty notice, specifically the failure to strike off the irrelevant charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars), vitiates the penalty proceedings. The penalty notice must clearly inform the assessee of the specific grounds for the penalty.
The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions to be realistic, especially since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C. It was held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed in such circumstances.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not dispute the genuineness or business purpose of the expenses but made an ad-hoc disallowance. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 10% of the aggregate expenditure.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering potential reasons for non-appearance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds and internal accruals to finance the new unit. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect as the assessee had filed its Section 12AA registration certificate. The AO could have easily obtained this information from the CIT(E) office. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that no appeal should be filed where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs, and this circular is applicable to pending cases.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's turnover, nature of business, and earlier profit percentages, reduced the estimated net profit rate from 10% to 9%. This was done to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed claimed the deduction for interest on the house loan in the original return of income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption). The issue was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to present information.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure but made disallowances due to incomplete documentation. Considering the business turnover and nature, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance of the disputed expenses to 5% of the claimed amount.
The Tribunal restricted the Gross Profit addition to Rs. 50,000 and reduced the disallowance of expenses to 10% of the AO's estimate. This was done considering the nature of business, maintenance of accounts, and to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure but made disallowances due to incomplete documentation. Considering the business turnover and nature, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance of the disputed expenses to 5% of the claimed amount.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the cash payment due to a public holiday, end of the financial year rush at banks, and the urgent need for funds for land purchase. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the deduction under Section 80IC. The AO's initial denial was based on an erroneous Tehsildar report, which was later corrected and accepted by the AO for a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO did not doubt the genuineness of the expenditure but made disallowances due to incomplete documentation. Considering the business turnover and nature, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance of the disputed expenses to 5% of the claimed amount.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and received Form-5. Consequently, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for rectification was filed beyond the prescribed four-year period from the end of the previous year in which the income was brought into India. Following a strict interpretation of exemption provisions, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's rejection of the application.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the penalty. The penalty on the cash credit addition was deleted as the quantum addition itself was deleted by the ITAT. Penalties on 40A(3) disallowance and capital gains addition were also cancelled following ITAT and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty notice and set aside the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was unearthed for the assessment years in question, the Assessing Officer could not have made the additions.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was unearthed for the assessment years in question, the Assessing Officer could not have made the additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's admission of the donation claim being not genuine, coupled with the fact that no additional tax was payable as the tax was already paid by TDS, did not establish that the claim was bogus or non-genuine. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for rectification was filed beyond the prescribed four-year period from the end of the previous year in which the income was brought into India. Following a strict interpretation of exemption provisions, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's rejection of the application.