Loading ITAT cases…
299 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's consistent absence and lack of interest in pursuing the case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal, effectively ending the appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle of vigilance, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that Aircel clarified that only Rs. 3,17,699/- was paid as commission to the assessee, while the remaining amount was paid directly to retailers. Therefore, the addition was not attributable to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for gold alloys pertaining to the current financial year was acceptable, but those from previous years were consumed. For gold received for repair, partial relief was granted based on the evidence provided.
The Tribunal found that the AO's order was cryptic and did not discuss the nature of the interest income. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as no share capital was raised during the year, making the invocation of Section 68 unsustainable. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior AY. It was held that the foreign visits were for business purposes and the expenditure was allowable.
The Tribunal held that only the profit on unreconciled freight receipts should be brought to tax, not the entire suppressed amount. Following a previous order in the assessee's own case, the AO was directed to adopt a net profit of 6.4% on the unreconciled receipts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that Section 50C cannot be applied when Section 45(3) is invoked, as it would involve combining two deeming fictions. The Tribunal also found the reopening of assessment to be bad in law on multiple grounds.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following precedent, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on all grounds, finding no infirmity in the factual findings or legal reasoning. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed, affirming the relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the date of the agreement to sell, where an advance was paid and rights were extinguished, should be considered the date of transfer for the purpose of Section 54. The purchase of the new flat was within one year prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion by the AO, who had previously examined the issue and accepted the assessee's explanation. Furthermore, on merits, it was notional income that would likely never be realized.
The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and the disallowance under Section 40A(9) based on judicial consistency and established legal propositions. The issue of provision for leave encashment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to submit all supporting evidence for its claims.
Following CBDT Circular No.3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance on advertisement, Basa, and general expenses to 10% of the total expenditure. It also restricted the disallowance on motor car expenses to 10% of the total expenditure. The disallowance of service tax payments was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by adjudicating grounds from a regular assessment order while deciding an appeal against a reassessment order. This procedural error vitiated the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO for rectification was vague and non-speaking, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the original interest calculation was done in compliance with the CIT(A)'s directions, and a subsequent change on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct proper inquiry to disprove the assessee's claim of off-market transactions, which are legally valid. The broker's expulsion occurred after the transactions, and all transactions were confirmed.
The Tribunal found that assistance of the assessee was required to substantiate its claims before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
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. The penalty under Section 271E was also cancelled because the AO, not the competent authority (Dy. CIT/Jt. CIT), initiated the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective because it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
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. The penalty under Section 271E was also cancelled because the AO, not the competent authority (Dy. CIT/Jt. CIT), initiated the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by adjudicating grounds from a regular assessment order while deciding an appeal against a reassessment order. This procedural error vitiated the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by adjudicating grounds from a regular assessment order while deciding an appeal against a reassessment order. This procedural error vitiated the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by adjudicating grounds from a regular assessment order while deciding an appeal against a reassessment order. This procedural error vitiated the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that Section 50C cannot be applied when Section 45(3) is invoked, as it would involve combining two deeming fictions. The Tribunal also found the reopening of assessment to be bad in law on multiple grounds.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO for rectification was vague and non-speaking, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the original interest calculation was done in compliance with the CIT(A)'s directions, and a subsequent change on the ground of a mistake apparent from the record was not permissible.
Following CBDT Circular No.3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn because the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal, citing the principle of vigilance and referencing relevant case law, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's failure to prosecute it.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte by the AO and the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte by the AO and the assessee did not appear for the appeal hearing. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational Section 263 order was quashed, the consequential AO's order giving effect to it was null and void. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the donation was made to an approved institution and the assessee cannot suffer due to subsequent withdrawal of approval. The disallowance was based on statements recorded behind the assessee's back without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the written-off advances and security deposits were either offered as income or reduced expenses in earlier years, or were made for business purposes and became irrecoverable. Therefore, they were allowable as a trading loss.
The Tribunal found the AO's method of examining sources from 25 years ago irrational and the assessee's explanations unsubstantiated. It directed that expenditure for improvements be allowed at 25% of the claimed amount for specific assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without waiting for the remand report or adjudicating the evidence filed by the assessee. The case was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, citing precedents where appeals are dismissed for failure to pursue them effectively. The assessee was given liberty to seek recall of the order by providing proper reasons for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the written-off advances and security deposits were either offered as income or reduced expenses in earlier years, or were made for business purposes and became irrecoverable. Therefore, they were allowable as a trading loss.
The Tribunal held that interest disallowance should be calculated on net interest expenditure after netting off interest received against interest paid. For administrative expenses, disallowance should be made on a proportionate basis of dividend income to gross receipts, not by mechanical application of Rule 8D(2)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it was contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular was also held to be applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular's revised monetary limits were also applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the claimed debtors. Therefore, the addition of ₹22 lac as income from undisclosed sources was justified.
The Tribunal held that cash payments made by the assessee to a wholesale agent were covered by exceptions in Rule 6DD(k), and that purchases made under the partner's PAN were sufficiently explained and supported by evidence. However, the disallowance of expenses due to lack of supporting evidence was upheld.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh inquiries. These inquiries included examining the genuineness and source of share capital for all shareholders and the reasons for any change in directorship.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the appeal back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of being heard to the assessee.