Loading ITAT cases…
109 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO had not established discrepancies in the assessee's books of accounts or demonstrated the unreliability of the profit margins shown. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was deemed reasoned and justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the PCIT's order, confirming that the assessment order was indeed erroneous due to a lack of proper inquiry. The assessee's failure to appear or provide details further supported this conclusion.
The Tribunal found that the alleged overstatement of purchases was due to the inclusion of transportation charges and exclusion of insurance chatai, which were properly reconciled. The Tribunal held that there was no overstatement of purchases after considering the reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal treated the redundant appeal (ITA No. 36/KOL/2021) as infructuous and dismissed it. The other appeal was noted to be listed before a different bench.
The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on a disclosure made under coercion, without corroborative evidence, is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the seized document was not produced and the department failed to establish its relevance to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT had not applied his mind to the details available on record and that the assessee had provided explanations and supporting material. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses in question did not require TDS deduction, making Section 40(a)(ia) inapplicable.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. The additions made by the AO on account of unexplained share capital and sundry creditors were found to be unexplained by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock and bogus long-term capital gains is squarely covered by a recent Calcutta High Court decision. This decision affirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that the introduction of share capital/premium remained unexplained. Given the assessee's non-cooperation and lack of evidence, the appeal was decided ex-parte.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained share capital/premium, as the assessee failed to provide any evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanations for the introduction of unexplained share capital/premium and sundry creditors. The additions made by the AO were found to be justified.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the introduction of share capital/premium remained unexplained. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to contradict the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee having settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020 and paid the full and final settlement amount.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to provide any evidence or explanation for the unexplained share capital/premium and sundry creditors. The additions made by the AO were found to be justified given the lack of cooperation and evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of cash deposits, even after multiple opportunities before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. Therefore, the additions made were upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the adjustment for corporate guarantee fees, finding the assessee's benchmarking approach reasonable. For the transfer of power, the Tribunal agreed that the rate at which the State Electricity Board sold power to non-eligible units represented the arm's length price.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of cash deposits, even after multiple opportunities before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. Therefore, the additions made were upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained share capital/premium, as the assessee provided no evidence to the contrary. The appeal was decided ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof regarding identity and creditworthiness, the denial by one creditor and non-service on another raised doubts. However, considering the nature of transactions, the Tribunal estimated a commission income of 3% on the advanced loans.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the assessee had not pursued the scheme due to a dispute in tax quantification. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The additions made by the AO on account of unexplained share capital/premium were sustained as the assessee failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained share capital/premium. The assessee failed to provide any evidence to counter the findings.
The Tribunal decided the appeal ex-parte, noting that the issue was covered by a Calcutta High Court decision on penny stocks. The High Court had affirmed additions made under Section 68 for bogus long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee remained uncooperative and failed to provide any evidence to counter the additions made by the AO. The additions were on account of unexplained share capital.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee having resolved the dispute with the Revenue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee's Director. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share applicants, and the AO's initial acceptance was based on proper investigation. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee having resolved the dispute with the Revenue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred on the farmhouse were disproportionately high compared to the negligible agricultural income shown, suggesting it was primarily used as a farmhouse. Therefore, the addition as deemed income from house property was justified.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee having opted for and complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's approach was mechanical and placed an undue burden on the assessee to collect information from numerous parties. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not conduct substantive inquiries himself.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The decision of the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct adequate inquiries regarding the LTCG claim, especially given the phenomenal rise in share price within a short period and the revenue's investigations into share manipulation. Therefore, the PCIT's order invoking Section 263 was justified.
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 and applies from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under appeal, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the untraceable party, it did not provide details of actual procurement. In the absence of such details, the Tribunal had no option but to confirm the revenue authorities' order.
The Tribunal directed that the correct PAN of the assessee, ADLPG7042G, should be read in place of the incorrect PAN, ADLPG7042P, in its order dated 18th February, 2022.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it does not apply to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that once the Section 263 order was quashed, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to pass assessment orders based on it ceased. Consequently, the assessment orders were not sustainable.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and paid the due taxes. As there was no objection from the revenue, the tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the tax dues were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that once the Section 263 order was quashed, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to pass assessment orders based on it ceased. Consequently, the assessment orders were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is void ab initio and unsustainable. Such a flawed order cannot be the basis for subsequent proceedings.
The Tribunal held that once the Section 263 order was quashed, the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to pass assessment orders based on it ceased. Consequently, the assessment orders were not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to availing the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.