Loading ITAT cases…
257 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that cash loans received from family members, such as mother and wife, do not violate Section 269SS if they are mere book entries and not intended to evade detection. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals, finding it was due to improper legal advice. While affirming the CIT's power to revise the assessment due to the AO's lack of inquiry, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issues with fresh opportunities for the assessee.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and jurisdictional High Court rulings, holding that a vague penalty notice under Section 274, which does not specify the charge, invalidates the penalty. Therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the appeal on merits is not permissible in law. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal cancelled the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for AY 2012-13, finding it unsustainable. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular, which enhances the monetary limits for filing appeals, is binding on revenue authorities and applies retrospectively.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals, finding it was due to improper legal advice. While affirming the CIT's power to revise the assessment due to the AO's lack of inquiry, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issues with fresh opportunities for the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made mistakes in figures and did not adjudicate all grounds. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal held that the late fee payment was not penal and therefore allowable as a deduction. However, the disallowance of prior period expenditure was upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the appeal on merits is not permissible in law. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there was a mistake apparent on record regarding the PAN number of the assessee. This mistake was a typographical error and has been rectified in the corrected order.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal without considering the merits was not in accordance with the law. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, along with the annexed booklet of terms and conditions and the recital in the Conveyance Deed, constituted an agreement for sale. Therefore, the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement should be considered.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The first ground regarding MAT credit was dismissed as the Revenue's representative could not point out any factual mistake. The second and third grounds were dismissed as not maintainable as the CIT(A) had not granted any relief on those issues.
The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice were violated as the orders were ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the late filing. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals ex-parte without deciding on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on grounds of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses, when crystallized in the relevant accounting period, are allowable as business expenditure. It further noted that the assessee was assessed at a uniform rate of tax and the genuineness of the expenses was not disputed. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The tribunal noted that the assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeal. The departmental representative raised no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. The exception mentioned in the later circular was not applicable to the facts of this case, which did not involve bogus Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss in penny stocks.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided three substantive grounds on merits and restored these issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also restored the Section 40(a)(ia) issue for fresh adjudication, relying on a coordinate bench ruling regarding the retrospective effect of a statutory amendment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not frame points of adjudication nor made a detailed adjudication as required by law. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient enquiries and taken a plausible view, relying on judicial precedents. The Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was deemed unsustainable as the jurisdictional conditions were not met.
The Tribunal noted that the AO drew adverse inference mainly due to non-appearance of directors of share-subscribing companies, despite 5 out of 6 notices being complied with. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity at the assessment stage.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct the independent inquiry as directed and the assessee had provided necessary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the net profit at 1.0075% of the turnover, considering the assessee's past profit trends. It also affirmed that no further disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made once the books of accounts are rejected and profit is estimated.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the set off of brought forward losses must be claimed in the immediately succeeding year or years. Since the losses were not claimed in AY 2012-13, they could not be set off against the income of AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing substantial justice. It held that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the CIT's direction to conduct independent inquiries into the genuineness of share capital, instead placing the entire burden on the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had sufficiently substantiated the source of cash deposits with cash flow statements and bank records. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding loans from two companies, but directed the AO to assess the perquisite value of interest-free loans from a third company where the assessee was a whole-time director.
The tribunal deleted the addition on account of difference in proprietor's capital, holding it to be a double addition. The issue of payments to Khadim India Ltd. was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication due to new evidence. The addition for undisclosed contractual income was restricted to the net profit element.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO due to the failure of its earlier representative to produce essential agreements. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of unsold flats was untenable and that construction material purchased at the year-end was correctly included in work-in-progress. The Tribunal also found that profit on unsold flats should not be taxed in the current year as it was not realized or accrued.
The Tribunal found no illegality in denying the Section 10(23AAA) exemption in principle. However, it held that the computation of taxable income deserved to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO due to the failure of its earlier representative to produce essential agreements. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO due to the failure of its earlier representative to produce essential agreements. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal concerning the business promotion expenses. It noted that neither the assessee provided all supportive details nor the lower authorities found specific defects. In the interest of justice, a lumpsum disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of Rs. 4,19,204/- was deemed just and proper, with the rider that it would not be a precedent. Regarding the Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction, the Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on its own case's co-ordinate bench decision was not well-founded as it went against the jurisdictional High Court's subsequent judgment. The Tribunal treated the earlier co-ordinate bench order as per incuriam. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-do the computation of the impugned disallowance on a netting basis, considering the interest income from investments made from deposits as attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members, and to allow adequate opportunity for hearing. The principle is that interest income from investments made from member deposits in co-operative banks, even if from surplus funds, should be computed on a netting basis with corresponding interest expenditure to determine the eligible deduction under Section 80P, but the applicability of Section 80P(4) needs to be considered in light of jurisdictional High Court pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that additional depreciation is allowable on new plant and machinery even in subsequent years if the asset was new when acquired and put to use. It also held that education cess is not a tax and therefore its disallowance under Section 40(a)(ii) is incorrect.
The Tribunal restored the disallowance of interest to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, partly allowed the appeal by restricting the travel expense disallowance, and deleted a portion of the Section 14A disallowance while remanding the rest.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte and the assessee had submitted documentary evidence. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were bad in law and lacked material basis. The AO's reasons were found to be contradictory and not supported by evidence, failing to establish escapement of income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of unsold flats was untenable and that construction material purchased at the year-end was correctly included in work-in-progress. The Tribunal also found that profit on unsold flats should not be taxed in the current year as it was not realized or accrued.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient enquiries and taken a plausible view, relying on judicial precedents. The Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was deemed unsustainable as the jurisdictional conditions were not met.
The Tribunal restored the issue of share application money and premium to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, noting that the assessee was not put on notice before adverse inferences were drawn. A partial disallowance was made for labour charges and unexplained expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the balance additional depreciation claimed in the subsequent year is admissible, following its own previous decisions. For the leave encashment provision, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to await the final decision of the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO due to the incorrect address. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee does not constitute an international transaction. It also ruled that retention money is not income until final acceptance. Regarding Section 14A, proportionate disallowance of administrative expenditure was allowed for statistical purposes.