Loading ITAT cases…
297 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the revised return was filed due to bonafide doubts regarding the year of taxability of capital gains and the AO's actions. There was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding PF contributions, finding no infirmity in the order. However, the issues of bad debts and opening stock of flats were remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP against the Karnataka High Court's decision in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in treating the net profit on purchase and sale of shares as short-term capital gain, following the principle of consistency and previous judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TAR due to the bonafide belief that the Chartered Accountant would upload it. The Tribunal also noted that this was the first year of the requirement for timely TAR filing.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of peak credit, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claim that the deposits represented business turnover. The assessee's plea to estimate profit at 8% of deposits was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses related to material, operating costs, and employee costs. It found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details and supporting evidence to prove that these expenses were incurred for work executed by the JV and not by subcontractors.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable due to a defective show cause notice that did not specify the exact charge. For the penalty under Section 271(1)(d), the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard and remanded the matter.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. The payments were made through account payee drafts and cheques, and the transactions occurred before the company's incorporation, thus not violating Section 269SS.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction regarding the warranty provision, stating it was correct if not debited to the P&L. However, for other expenses, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee failed to provide evidence, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the charge was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to verify if the loan for which interest was waived was sanctioned for the project eligible for Section 80IA deduction. Similarly, the insurance claim issue was also remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that exempted capital gains cannot be included in 'accumulated profits' for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e). Since BKFCPL had negative accumulated profits after excluding exempted capital gains, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn and dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, involving the development of infrastructure like roads and bridges, fall under the scope of Section 80IA. The Tribunal distinguished this from a mere works contract, citing previous judgments in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is curative and retrospective, and the assessee should not be treated as in default if the recipient has offered the income to tax. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the evidence regarding the delay should be examined by the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside with a direction to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation petition and admit the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the foreign travel expenses were incurred for commercial expediency and generated brokerage income for the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that similar expenses were allowed in previous years.
The Tribunal noted that the dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34) and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue and allow the claim if it is indeed exempt dividend income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the charge against the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the imposition of penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order cancelling the penalties. This was based on a prior Tribunal decision that the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 194J as there was no payment for services, but rather a transfer of rights and revenue sharing.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective for not specifying the exact charge. Following the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP against the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made substantial compliance and the non-compliance was of a technical or venial nature. The penalties were not justified as there was reasonable cause for the failure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made substantial compliance and the non-compliance was of a technical or venial nature. Therefore, the penalties imposed were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective because it failed to specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal found the imposition of penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 was defective because it failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that grounds 3 and 6 were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) due to a communication error, which is against natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was justified due to the AO's lack of proper inquiry into the nature of the land and the exemption granted. The AO's order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed contrary to CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. However, based on the CBDT Circular and the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found it fair and in the interest of justice to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that government subsidies like transport, power, and excise duty refunds are directly related to the cost of production and have a nexus with the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking. Therefore, they are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.
The Tribunal held that as per the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), the disallowed expenditure should be allowed as a deduction in the year the TDS was paid. The CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the claim without a revised return.
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside issues to the AO for verification. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 by the CIT was invalid, as a previous ITAT decision had already ruled in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the AO's order giving effect to the revision became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked for short deduction of tax at source, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The disallowance of bad debts was deleted as the assessee provided evidence of write-off and prior year taxability. The addition on account of sundry creditors was deleted due to reconciliation and subsequent reversal of purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A and addition of undisclosed insurance commission, finding no basis in the AO's orders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and addition of undisclosed insurance commission, finding no basis for the AO's additions.
The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority (CIT(A)) was justified in deleting the disallowance of purchases. The Tribunal found that the purchases were supported by export orders and that the AO's conclusion about the genuineness of the parties was not based on facts.
The Tribunal directed the adoption of a net profit of 5% for cartage and handling charges, partly allowing the assessee's ground. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of forfeited earnest money, finding no evidence to support it as a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in revising the assessment order because the AO's inquiry was inadequate, rendering the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's direction for a thorough inquiry into the share capital and premium.