Loading ITAT cases…
79 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee's claim of the stock difference being taxed in the previous year required verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after verifying this claim.
The Tribunal held that since no interest was actually charged on the loan to M/s. Puja Ferro Alloys Limited for the year under consideration, and there was no agreement to charge interest, no real income had accrued to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct the independent inquiry as directed by the PCIT. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable. The assessee had provided documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with M/s. NCPL, including the JV agreement, cancellation, and refund.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had complied with the directions of the Principal CIT in the reassessment order by summoning and recording statements of directors of investor companies. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and High Court decisions which state that if share application money is received from disclosed shareholders, the department can proceed against the shareholders individually, and the assessee's income should not be taxed under Section 68 if identity and genuineness are established.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal ex parte. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed the grounds as not pressed, despite detailed submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed the grounds as not pressed, despite detailed submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not examined the provision for leave encashment and its reversal. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately completed under section 143(3) after substantial compliance by the assessee, the earlier non-compliance was not wilful. Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly disposed of the withdrawn appeal on merits, rendering the order a nullity. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view after considering the assessee's submissions and documents. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the repayment was made through banking channels (RTGS/Bank transfer) and not in cash as initially perceived. The Tribunal noted that such modes were recognized by the Finance Act, 2014, and there was a reasonable cause for the mode of repayment.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(Appeals) order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was also found to be non-compliant with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The impugned order also lacked the required written reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, the imposition of penalty could not be sustained.
The tribunal corrected the name of the respondent from 'M/s. Visual Securities Ltd.' to 'M/s. Visual Securas Ltd.' on the first page of its earlier order. This corrigendum forms part of the original order.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer without the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent assessment order invalid. Therefore, the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) violated the principle of natural justice by not giving the assessee an opportunity to produce supporting evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that additions in search assessments must be based on incriminating material. The appeals by the revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable when shares are allotted under a barter system and no cash has passed at any stage. The provision for power expenditure was also deleted as it was found to be an actual liability paid in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity during the assessment proceedings. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to produce the directors of the share subscribing companies.
The Tribunal held that M/s. GDL should not be included as a comparable company because it is functionally different and asset-intensive compared to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the DRP itself had excluded GDL in a subsequent assessment year for similar reasons.
The Tribunal held that the AO had rightly not made any disallowance as the assessee demonstrated no interest expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income. Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of excess stock as unexplained investment, as the assessee failed to provide evidence or take a consistent stand. However, the Tribunal deleted the addition of estimated profit from the sale of this excess stock, stating it was based on assumptions.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest income from bank fixed deposits, stating it lacks a direct nexus with the eligible business. However, the issues regarding interest from security deposits and delayed payments from customers were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the income in the return of income. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to verify the disclosure and delete the addition if confirmed, to avoid double taxation.
The tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to a minimal amount as no expenses were directly incurred for earning exempt income. For the profit computation issue, the tribunal directed the AO to follow the consistent method adopted by the assessee based on the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the fixed deposit from a prior AY could not be taxed in the current year, and remanded it for verification of interest. For undisclosed bank accounts, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to determine undisclosed investment and profits from the undisclosed business.
The Tribunal noted that the director had already declared this remuneration as income in her personal returns and paid tax on it. Therefore, adding it to the company's income would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the IT Rules by accepting fresh evidence without a remand report from the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of non-registration under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act. The primary requirement for registration under Section 12AA is the genuineness of the activities and the application itself.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A, noting the AO's acceptance of the assessee's revised working. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the ALV, following its own consistent decisions in favour of the assessee for earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to recompute capital gains based on the DVO's valuation report. The Tribunal also found no violation of Rule 46A as the assessee had a right to produce the DVO's report before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 to a deceased person, despite the department being aware of the death and the legal heir's identity, renders the notice bad in law. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the 'reasons to believe' were not properly established and appeared to be a borrowed satisfaction from an investigation report without preliminary inquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to re-compute the disallowance under Section 14A by considering only the investments that actually fetched exempt dividend income. For the interest disallowance issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that 'Mark to Market' losses on unexpired derivative contracts, when used for hedging business risks and following accounting standards, are allowable as business losses. The financial statements must reflect a true and fair view of assets and liabilities.
The Tribunal corrected the record to reflect that Smt. Ranu Biswas appeared for the Revenue/Appellant and Shri Subash Agarwal appeared for the Assessee/Respondent. This corrigendum is considered part of the original order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by passing ex parte orders without ensuring proper service of notice and hearing the assessee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued without jurisdiction, rendering the assessment void. Furthermore, disallowances made beyond the CASS criteria were also deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and that dismissing the appeal without a proper hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary power under Section 263 was exercised improperly. The Pr. CIT's satisfaction for revision was not based on sufficient grounds, and the Assessing Officer's order was not necessarily erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's second revisional action was not justified as the AO had already conducted a de novo assessment as per the first revisional order. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Lovely Exports, stating that if share application money is received from named shareholders, the department can proceed against those individuals.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Assessing Officer's order, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof by providing evidence for its expenditure claims. The disallowance was deemed justified.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO was invalid because it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given proper notice for all the dates of alleged non-compliance and that there were reasonable causes for non-appearance. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections became infructuous and were also dismissed.