Loading ITAT cases…
161 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the sugar purchases were not disclosed in the VAT return because sugar was exempt from VAT. The purchases were duly recorded in the books, supported by banking channels, invoices, and stock registers.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law because the objections filed by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment were not decided by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the consequential additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law because the objections filed by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment were not decided by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the consequential additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to be heard and failed to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law because the objections filed by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment were not decided by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the consequential additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted necessary documents, including invoices, confirmations, agreements, and had deducted TDS. The Tribunal held that the commission paid was for business purposes and directed the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was bad in law because the objections filed by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment were not decided by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the consequential additions made were not sustainable.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the appeal with the incorrect tribunal and had already filed an appeal with the correct tribunal. Therefore, the assessee prayed for the current appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and FMV for the flats was within the permissible 10% limit, making Section 56(2)(x) inapplicable. Regarding the share loss, the Tribunal found that the AO relied on general investigations and statements of unrelated parties without specific evidence against the assessee, and thus the loss should be allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the Assessing Officer's additions were unsustainable as a debit balance from a bank account cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure, and the cash in hand was misrepresented.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue authorities' decision was based on an incorrect auditor's report. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case involving M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's contention regarding the fair market value being Rs. 35 lakh was supported by a jurisdictional High Court decision. The addition made by the AO was based on the stamp value, which the assessee disputed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct independent investigations and relied solely on external reports without substantiating allegations against the assessee. The Tribunal also found that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee earned no exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is to be decided based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also held that interest under Section 234C should be calculated on the returned income, not the assessed income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could only apply for final registration after obtaining provisional approval. The application was considered within the prescribed time frame as it was filed after the commencement of activities post-provisional registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the facts and in violation of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that documents were indeed filed before the AO, as confirmed by the AO's report.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BBA. The assessee acts as a collection agent for the government, and there is no profit element embedded in the service tax collected.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BBA. The assessee acts as a collection agent for the government, and there is no profit element embedded in the service tax collected.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' PF and ESI contributions is to be sustained, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The adjustment made under section 143(1) is valid.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BBA. The assessee acts as a collection agent for the government, and there is no profit element embedded in the service tax collected.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to appear and provide any submissions or documents to challenge the reopening or the assessment. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further verification of the subscribers' assessments, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is to be decided based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also held that interest under Section 234C should be calculated on the returned income, not the assessed income.
The Tribunal held that the AO recorded reasons for reopening based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had disclosed some exempt income, contradicting the AO's finding of non-disclosure.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent order by the CIT(A) was void ab initio as the appeal had already been disposed of. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed payment of purchase consideration to a broker is not covered under Section 194A of the Act. Therefore, no TDS was required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to conduct proper inquiries and examine the evidence furnished by the assessee. The addition was made mechanically without application of mind, and the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the prolonged delay in the approval process by the authorities. Considering the Supreme Court's decision in Textool Co. Ltd. and the nature of gratuity as salary, the claim was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had reopened the assessment based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind and without verifying the details furnished by the assessee. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A).
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits but dismissed it for non-appearance, despite the assessee's adjournment request. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable in law because the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer was in a standard format, failing to specify the correct limb under which the penalty was proposed. This violated the principle of natural justice as the assessee was deprived of an adequate opportunity to respond.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and stamp duty value was less than 10%, thus falling within the permissible limit under Section 56 read with Section 50C, and directed deletion of the addition. The second addition was deleted as it was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that income from tea cultivation and manufacturing should be computed under Rule 8 of the IT Rules, bifurcating income into 60:40. Contributions paid within 30 days of collection are to be allowed as deductions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the remand report. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine the assessee's documents and explanations regarding TDS non-deduction and decide the case on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer in Kolkata was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction, quashing the assessment order.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to give the assessee a proper opportunity to present her case and furnish requisite details.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. It was held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case on merits, considering the circumstances of improper notice service.
The Tribunal held that the mistake was inadvertent and the assessee should not be penalized. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification and application of the most beneficial tax scheme for the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were primarily from marriage gifts received by the assessee from her parents and grandfather. The Tribunal was satisfied with the evidence of the donors' creditworthiness and the assessee's opening cash balance.
The Tribunal held that an AO cannot adjudicate issues not forming part of the limited scrutiny without obtaining prior approval to convert it into a complete scrutiny. Therefore, the AO's order was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons beyond the assessee's control. It held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with Section 127 of the Act.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case and directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 2% on the total amount instead of 8%.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, holding that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is invalid. The assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was not decided on merits by the CIT(A) and the issue of cash deposit was not examined by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, holding that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is invalid. The assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case and directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 2% on the total amount instead of 8%.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to appreciate that the assessee, being a company, needs to incur expenses to keep its office running. The expenses claimed under the head 'business' should be allowed to be set off against house property income.
The Tribunal found that the dates for submissions fell within the COVID period, and thus, the assessee deserved a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing loan confirmations, PANs, bank statements, and audited accounts of lenders. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further independent verification, making the addition unjustified.