Loading ITAT cases…
202 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that while the PCIT had the power to revise the order due to the AO's inadequate inquiry, the PCIT should not have directly made an addition. Instead, the PCIT should have set aside the AO's order and directed a fresh inquiry, especially since the proceedings under Section 263 were concluded ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders where the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate, even if the AO was not empowered to make additions on share capital before the amendment to Section 68. The impugned orders of the CIT were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the business of printing and publishing is considered manufacture or production of an article or thing, making the assessee eligible for additional depreciation. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was unsustainable. It ruled that the registration granted under Section 12AA on 18.07.2014 was applicable to the assessment years in appeal as appellate proceedings were pending.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of additional purchases and renovation expenses, finding them to be bogus. However, the issue of double addition regarding sundry creditors written back was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the notice u/s 143(2), finding it to be a technical issue with no merit. Regarding the bogus purchases, the tribunal found that the profit margin sustained by the CIT(A) was too high and directed the AO to estimate the profit at 8% of the turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT could not invoke Section 263 powers as the AO had applied his mind to the issue, and previous ITAT orders supported the assessee's claim for 100% depreciation on temporary hoarding structures. The CIT's order was quashed.
The CIT(A) observed that the share applicants invested out of their own funds, with the immediate source being the sale of existing investments. The tribunal held that the assessee had complied with all statutory formalities and established the creditworthiness of the applicants.
The Tribunal held that the transactions in the F&O market undertaken to safeguard against price fluctuations in stock holdings fall within the exceptions provided in clause (c) to Section 43(5) of the Act and are not speculative transactions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the disallowance of catering charges, finding the transaction to be a purchase of food items, not a works contract subject to TDS.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was based on a wrong premise. The AO had already taxed the profit on undisclosed purchases, and the CIT's attempt to add the entire difference under Section 69C was not justified.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reversing the addition for advances from M/s Interlink Pvt. Ltd. and allowing relief for ₹1 crore from M/s Bharat Minmet Corporation, while sustaining the remaining addition. For expenses, the Tribunal allowed 50% of the disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's revenue recognition method, based on percentage of completion, was consistent and accepted in prior years. It also noted that the investment in the partnership firm was shown for loan purposes and lacked supporting evidence of actual investment by the deceased assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by depositing into the wholesale licensee's bank account were covered by the exceptions under Rule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) of the IT Rules. The wholesale licensee was considered an agent of the State Government for regulating liquor sales.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee as it is a power generating company governed by specific regulations. The issue of provision for leave encashment was remitted back to the AO pending a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without any tangible material coming into the possession of the AO after the original assessment. Therefore, the initiation of reassessment was based merely on a change of opinion and was not proper.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received were genuine trade advances, duly squared up by subsequent supplies and sales. The AO's rejection of the evidence and reliance on procedural issues were found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the AO's remand reports confirmed the assessee's explanations and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by depositing into the wholesale licensee's bank account were covered by the exceptions under Rule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) of the IT Rules. The wholesale licensee was considered an agent of the State Government for regulating liquor sales.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication because the assessee produced additional evidence (production register) which was not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without any tangible material coming into the possession of the AO after the original assessment. Therefore, the initiation of reassessment was based merely on a change of opinion and was not proper.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support claims of principal-agent relationship or supplier insistence on cash payments. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 6,05,325/- was unwarranted. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity and genuineness of the transactions with the job workers, especially considering the nature of their business.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid as they were initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after considering all facts.
The Tribunal observed the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed was contrary to the department's policy decision regarding monetary limits for appeals.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inadequate inquiry empowered the CIT to revise the assessment order under section 263. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding it to be based on valid considerations and not erroneous.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's conduct and the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and the delay in filing the appeal. The principle that law assists the vigilant was applied.
The Tribunal, observing the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, treated it as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal, observing the assessee's conduct and citing legal principles of vigilance, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). The ex parte order of dismissal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without going into the merits, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. This was done to provide the assessee another opportunity to argue the case on merit, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. Following the principle of judicial discipline and a High Court ruling, the Tribunal found the AO's order, which was based on previous assessments and judicial precedents, was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by the assessee fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by the assessee fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the provision for IBNR and the reserve for unexpired risk, when made as per statutory guidelines and based on scientific calculation, are to be treated as ascertained liabilities. Therefore, they need not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the provision for IBNR and the reserve for unexpired risk, when made as per statutory guidelines and based on scientific calculation, are to be treated as ascertained liabilities. Therefore, they need not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by the assessee to transporters for freight charges violated the provisions of Section 40A(3). The documentary evidence was insufficient to prove payments were made to individual drivers within the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that some receipts were accounted for in the previous year and directed the matter to be remanded. The CIT(Appeals) was asked to decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding share capital issued at a premium rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the CIT was empowered to revise the assessment order under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for professional fees should be reconsidered in light of provisos to Section 201(1) and 40(a)(ia) if recipients offered income for tax. The addition for the credit balance was set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to prove its genuineness.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on job work charges as no unverifiable element was pointed out. For the ledger differences, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification of the assessee's claim that these pertained to earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by the assessee fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-compliance and set aside the ex parte order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision after providing another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). The impugned ex parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the entire business of the company, including share trading, brokerage, and derivative income, should be considered as one composite business of purchase and sale of shares. Consequently, the loss incurred in share trading should be treated as speculative business income and allowed to be set off against profits from the same business.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the issue of TDS credit for a different assessment year was debatable. Therefore, it was beyond the scope of rectification proceedings under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the provision for IBNR and the reserve for unexpired risk, when made as per statutory guidelines and based on scientific calculation, are to be treated as ascertained liabilities. Therefore, they need not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 194J to the assessee's case required further verification by the AO, especially concerning the turnover limits. Regarding cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the matter needed to be remanded to the AO for proper verification of the cash book and supporting evidence.