Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was debatable and required verification of facts, which cannot be done in a rectification proceeding under Section 154. Therefore, the AO's order under Section 154 was invalid.
The Tribunal cancelled the penalties levied under Sections 271B, 272B, and 271(1)(b). It held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable if books of account are not maintained, penalty under Section 272B for not quoting PAN is bad in law when PAN was quoted, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on a particular date for Section 271(1)(b).
The tribunal found that the ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution was not permissible. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication according to law.
The Tribunal cancelled the penalties levied under Sections 271B, 272B, and 271(1)(b). It held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable if books of account are not maintained, penalty under Section 272B for not quoting PAN is bad in law when PAN was quoted, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on a particular date for Section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal cancelled the penalties levied under Sections 271B, 272B, and 271(1)(b). It held that penalty under Section 271B is not leviable if books of account are not maintained, penalty under Section 272B for not quoting PAN is bad in law when PAN was quoted, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on a particular date for Section 271(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that the amount was indeed salary paid to employees, not a contractual payment. Evidence like PF and ESI deductions, along with a clarification from the auditor regarding a typographical error, supported the assessee's claim. Since individual salaries did not exceed the taxable limit, TDS was not required.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries by issuing notices, seeking explanations, and obtaining confirmations from the broker and seller. The Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's view was erroneous or unsustainable in law, thus the condition precedent for invoking Section 263 was absent.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed by ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata, was legally unsustainable and therefore quashed. The Tribunal reasoned that the jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-5(3) was divested by the order under Section 127 dated 28.08.2012, transferring the case to DCIT, CC-XVII. Consequently, ITO, Ward-5(3) became functus officio and could not have suo motu assumed jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that Section 124(3) was not applicable because the jurisdiction was legally transferred, and the assessee was not required to raise an objection as the ITO had already lost jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. Ramshila Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., stating that the earlier AO ceased to be the Assessing Officer after the transfer date. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that Section 124(5) saved the order, finding it devoid of merit. The assessee's objection regarding the validity of the reassessment order was upheld, and the order was held to be null in the eyes of law. The assessee succeeded on the legal issue raised.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO's view was plausible and consistent with judicial precedents, particularly the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., which was more applicable than the Supreme Court's decision in Totgar's Co-operative Sales Society Ltd. in this context.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years requires the AO to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, which was not done. Furthermore, the reassessment was completed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2).
The Tribunal held that the provision for NPA, which was simultaneously reduced from the asset side of the balance sheet, amounted to an actual write-off. Therefore, it did not attract clause (i) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as the transactions involved the issuance of the assessee's own shares against the purchase of shares of other companies, resulting in no actual inflow of cash. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and file submissions.