Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the funds deposited in the assessee's accounts were reimbursements for payments made by his wife for Oriflame products, not undisclosed income. The Tribunal also found that the unexplained investment was adequately explained by cash deposits from downline agents and withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard during the reassessment proceedings. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal found that the assessment order must be made after a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer considered only the deposit side of the bank account without giving credit for corresponding withdrawals. Therefore, the appeal was accepted to the extent that the Assessing Officer needs to consider the withdrawals.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' orders, which had raised serious doubts about the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share premium. The absence of a paper book to rebut these findings further supported the decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied adjudication on technicalities, with notices not sent to the correct address and the revision petition being non-maintainable. The detailed evidence filed by the assessee was not considered.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to amalgamation expenses as not pressed. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if any exempt dividend income was earned, considering the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that administrative and establishment expenses are incidental to the charitable purpose and thus allowable. It also held that depreciation is allowable for the assessment year in question, as the amendment disallowing it was not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing supporting case laws.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not meet the criteria for Section 2(22)(e) as they held less than 10% of the voting power in the company. Furthermore, the advance was not considered a loan or dividend as it was used for company business and approved by a board resolution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision for a preceding assessment year, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the names of the representatives for the assessee and the revenue were incorrectly stated in the original order. The corrigendum provides the correct names of the representatives for both parties.
The Tribunal held that the names of the representatives for the assessee and the revenue were incorrectly stated in the original order. The corrigendum provides the correct names of the representatives for both parties.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard during the assessment proceedings, as the AO collected material behind the assessee's back and made additions without providing an opportunity to rebut it. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay and non-compliance before the CIT(A). However, considering the Revenue's contention about non-compliance during assessment, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 114-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause. It also held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the 6-day delay before him, as the explanation was plausible.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee was not given adequate opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case, stating sufficient own funds were available for investments. However, for Section 115JB, the matter was remanded to the AO to compute disallowances as per clause (f) of Explanation-1 to Section 115JB independently.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the net profit at 8% of the turnover. It found that the assessee failed to substantiate the truck hiring charges and that the CIT(A)'s estimation was reasonable given the circumstances.
The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to suggest the assessee received the impugned cash component. The seized documents and the co-owner's statement did not mention the assessee as a recipient of the on-money payment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly excluded investments not yielding exempt income based on jurisdictional High Court decisions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal had no merit.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by depositing cash into the supplier's bank account were covered under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. The supplier was considered a State Government establishment and an agent of the State Government for the supply of country spirit.
The Tribunal held that the payment was for legitimate agency and infrastructure services availed by the assessee. It also ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable due to the payee having already paid tax on the income and that the service tax component was correctly included.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the change of address. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be a sufficient cause and not indicative of gross negligence. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee also failed to comply with notices during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the tribunal emphasized that filing an appeal requires active pursuit.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-cooperative attitude and failure to prosecute the appeal, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Since the assessee did not earn any dividend income, the disallowance was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable as there was a technical and venial breach due to a bona fide belief by the assessee's Chartered Accountant. The assessee had completed the audit and filed the return within the prescribed time, and the manual submission was within the extended period allowed by CBDT.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) also failed to decide the appeal ground-wise and consider the material submitted before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue should be dismissed in limine as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 due to low tax effect. The circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) and that the ex parte order should be set aside. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to submit necessary documents and evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 43B to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's claim that Section 43B cannot be invoked due to its retrospective registration under Section 12A. The appeal challenging the rejection of the rectification application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54F, which disentitles deduction for two houses converted into a single unit, was effective from April 1, 2015. Since the assessment year was 2009-10, this amendment was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of labour charges was incorrect as the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS in the relevant financial year. Regarding advances, the Tribunal held that advances are liabilities and not income, and thus the addition should be restricted to the TDS amount.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of service and supervision charges, finding no reason to reject the balance 30% when 70% was allowed. For professional and legal charges, the Tribunal allowed 15% of the addition, partly allowing the appeal. Regarding the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the possibility of double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of purchases solely based on non-receipt of information from parties was not sufficient. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had produced books of account and supporting documents, and the transactions were tax-neutral.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-appearance, citing the principle that the law does not assist a sleeping litigant. However, the assessee was given liberty to file an application to recall the order for just cause.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 43B to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's claim that Section 43B cannot be invoked due to its retrospective registration under Section 12A. The appeal challenging the rejection of the rectification application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the business inherently involves such expenses but found the assessee's lack of substantiation problematic. However, it reduced the disallowance from 15% to 6% of the claimed expenses.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing legal precedents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-appearance and that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding stock shortage, allowing 90% of the addition. It also partly allowed the appeal regarding director salaries, allowing 70% of the disallowance. The appeal regarding depreciation was fully allowed, quashing the additions made by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, as the law assists those who are vigilant.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear. The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, citing legal precedents that emphasize the need to actively pursue appeals.