Loading ITAT cases…
158 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that since the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance was not warranted. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in directing the Assessing Officer to investigate the genuineness of voluntary donations and re-examine the effective date of registration under Section 12A(2).
The Tribunal held that since the amounts were deposited before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance was not warranted. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal found that the bank account showed regular deposits and withdrawals, suggesting trading activity rather than a lump-sum undisclosed income. Therefore, the entire deposit could not be treated as income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reasons recorded for reopening were insufficient and did not correlate with the assessee's accounts. Furthermore, the reopening was done on the last day of the limitation period, denying the assessee an opportunity to object, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that warranty expenses, when made on a scientific basis, are allowable. It also found that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for claiming additional depreciation by acquiring and installing new machinery that increased production capacity.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. The lower authorities were not justified in making the impugned disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer (ITO, Ward-45(4)) who lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the notice and all consequential actions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated from the beginning due to a defective notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c). The notice failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee, making it invalid.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting an Explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B, is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under appeal (2019-20), the assessee's claim is allowable if remitted before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of organized tax evasion or a special order from the CBDT to file the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had claimed the exemption under 'Schedule EI - Exempt Income' and not under Section 54B, and that the AO had made adequate inquiries. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was based on incorrect facts.
The Tribunal held that the gains from share transactions should be treated as short-term capital gains, not business income. This was based on the fact that investments were made from the assessee's own capital, shares were held after delivery, and the assessee consistently showed such income as capital gains in past and subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the AO conducted a complete and adequate inquiry into the share sale transaction and took a plausible view. Therefore, the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy is a capital receipt and the assessee's plea to exclude it from taxable income constitutes a mistake apparent on record, allowing for rectification. The lower authorities failed to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 154.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence of purchases and sales, and that the PCIT's order to set aside the entire assessment was not justified. The Tribunal modified the PCIT's order by directing the Assessing Officer to assess the net profit rate at 2% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is applicable, allowing deduction in the year of actual payment. Since the sales tax liability was crystallized and paid in AY 2013-14, it was eligible for deduction in that year.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had issued notices to an incorrect address. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Both the Revenue and the assessee agreed that a fresh assessment was necessary due to the inability to examine books and documents properly.
The ITAT deleted the addition for late PF/ESI contributions, citing a High Court decision. However, it confirmed the additions for unexplained capital and non-deduction of TDS due to lack of explanation from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and provide any submissions. The Revenue argued that the high share premium was unjustified and that many share applicant companies were newly incorporated with nominal income but substantial investments. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of justification for the premium and the nature of the applicant companies.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 jurisdiction on matters already considered and decided in an appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the increase in capital was due to a clerical error in consolidating financial statements, not an unexplained cash credit. The assessee had provided reconciled accounts and rectified the mistake in subsequent years.
The Tribunal restored the issue of genuineness of purchases to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee was given an opportunity to provide details of parties who made direct cash deposits to M/s. Johal & Co.'s bank account on behalf of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee's consistent non-appearance and failure to provide evidence before any of the authorities. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB was defective as it failed to specify the exact clause under which the penalty was being levied. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it failed to specify under which limb of Section 271AAB the penalty was being levied. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal found the PCIT's order to be vague and lacking clarity on the errors in the original assessment. It noted that the PCIT failed to point out any specific defect or incriminating material to justify the revisionary action.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT had not conducted independent inquiries and relied on a view not sustainable in law.
The tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, agreeing that since the assessee disputed the enhanced power tariff and litigated it up to the Supreme Court, the liability had not crystallized in the assessment year under consideration. The Supreme Court's decision in 2017 confirmed the crystallization of the liability.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed that the assessee be given an opportunity to produce necessary evidence and creditors for verification. The CIT(A) will then decide the issue afresh.
The tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not affect payments made before its insertion. For the case with the typo in the audit report, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not affect payments made before its insertion. For the case with the typo in the audit report, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not affect payments made before its insertion. For the case with the typo in the audit report, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable on the two issues raised in the first show-cause notice. Regarding the first issue, concerning the addition of interest on service tax to book profit for MAT computation, the Tribunal found that the AO had taken a plausible view, and there was no justification for the PCIT to interfere under Section 263. Similarly, on the second issue related to Section 50C and parking spaces, the Tribunal observed that Section 50C applies to land or building or both, and the assignment of parking spaces might not fall within its ambit as it's not an absolute transfer. The Tribunal noted that the AO's opinion on this matter was plausible, and therefore, action under Section 263 was not warranted. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it would not express any opinion on the other show-cause notices as the PCIT had not issued specific directions on those points, and it was unclear if the PCIT was satisfied with the assessee's explanation or if a Section 154 order was passed. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order to the extent of the two issues discussed, finding them not justifiable under Section 263. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred by relying on the tax auditor's observation without verifying the assessee's audited financial statements. The financial statements clearly showed the amount as a write-off of deferred sales, not a contingent liability.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and does not affect payments made before its insertion. For the case with the typo in the audit report, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the commission income offered by the assessee did not qualify as 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB as it was not discovered during the search and the assessee had time to offer it before the end of the assessment year.