Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that provision for gratuity paid before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. It also held that the addition on account of transportation charges was made without jurisdiction as it was not part of the directions in the Section 263 order.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeals with the liberty to seek restoration if the assessees' applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme are not accepted by the Department.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor. Given that the investor company was assessed by the department in the previous year, its existence and the transaction's genuineness could not be disputed.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order was bad in law because the AO had made proper inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the transactions based on available evidence. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion and general allegations without specific material against the assessees.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not make a categorical finding on whether the paintings were business assets used in the business. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be imposed if the notice does not specify the relevant clause, the AO accepts the return, and no undisclosed income is found. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal as it was covered under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending given the assessee's intention to utilize the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the scheme was not accepted or if they changed their mind.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was contrary to the policy decision of the Department as laid down in the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty levied and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as they failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such defective notices invalidate the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. It was held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to contest the appeal on merits before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the revisional order under section 263 was quashed, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer based on it has no legal validity and must also be quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal with the condition that if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is not accepted, the appeal can be restored. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be imposed if the notice initiating penalty proceedings does not specify the relevant clause of the section, if the AO has accepted the assessee's return, and if no undisclosed income has been identified. The penalty notice was found to be vague and lacked a specific charge.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the source of investment in the property, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The legal ground regarding the invalidity of the notice was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry regarding the source of investment in the property, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The legal ground regarding the invalidity of the notice was also dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) enhanced the addition without conducting independent inquiry or investigation, relying on surmises and conjectures. The Tribunal noted that the AO had conducted thorough inquiries, including summoning directors and share applicants, and accepted most of the share capital. The enhancement by the CIT(A) was deemed arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the investments. It also held that subsidies received for setting up industries, like VAT and excise duty refunds, should be excluded from book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that non-receipt of notices caused non-compliance and allowed the matter to be restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was bad in law due to vague and borrowed satisfaction of the AO. Consequently, the additions made, including the one under Section 68, were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding motor car running expenses as verifiable bills were provided. However, it dismissed the appeal for miscellaneous expenses due to lack of sufficient details. The disallowance under Section 14A was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation based on jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, granting liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals, granting liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.