Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under section 263 was not maintainable because the assessment order under section 153A was passed without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments stating that section 263 cannot be used to introduce new issues not arising from seized material in unabated assessments.
The Tribunal held that a revision under Section 263 cannot be initiated if no incriminating material was found during the search and seizure, and the assessment under Section 153A was based on the returned income. The revision was found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted a mismatch in figures and that the assessee failed to file additional evidence before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The PCIT agreed with the assessee's contention that an assessment completed under Section 153A cannot be reopened under Section 263 without incriminating material for that year. Consequently, the PCIT dropped the proceedings under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 proceedings cannot be initiated to bring new issues not arising from seized material into play, especially when the assessment under Section 153A was based on returned income due to lack of incriminating evidence. The revisionary power under Section 263 is not a substitute for reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contributions to EPF/ESI was justified as they were not paid within the due date. However, it allowed the expenses incurred on the premises used as a residence for the Director, treating it as a business expense.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) supersedes the initial 143(1) order. Therefore, the excess tax liability worked out by the CPC under section 143(1) should be vacated.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was brief and did not address all issues, including the Departmental Valuation Officer's report received after the assessment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 27,072/- was made twice and remitted it for verification. The addition of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication after considering the Income Declaration Scheme declaration. The disallowance of Rs. 49,52,712/- out of business expenses was deleted as it was made arbitrarily.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate a live nexus between the information possessed and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons for reopening were found to be vague and lacked independent application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while long-term capital gains from quoted securities with STT paid are exempt under Section 10(38), the loss incurred from such transactions can be set off against other capital gains. The exemption applies to positive income, not losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documents and materials to prove the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders, and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, invoking Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty from BSE was a business loss and not disallowable under Section 37. It also found no justification for the addition on account of alleged commission on penny stock transactions, as brokerage was already accounted for.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was uploaded and communicated to the assessee after the time limit prescribed by law. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were void-ab-initio and could not be legally sustained.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of provision for leave encashment was partly allowable based on actual payment. It also allowed the claim for milk wastage as a normal business loss, considering past acceptance of similar losses. The disallowance of advertisement expenditure was also allowed. The issue of brought forward losses was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal observed that the AO wrongly calculated the disallowance under Section 14A by considering the entire investment value instead of only those investments yielding dividend income. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment/reassessment made by the Assessing Officer was invalid and illegal due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. This omission was considered a non-curable procedural irregularity.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders behind the assessee's back without providing an opportunity to present its case. Considering the assessee's claim of exemption and the procedural lapses, the Tribunal set aside the orders.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation. The assessee failed to provide necessary details regarding the assets, their usage for business purposes, or income earned under Section 56(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Act to justify the claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had made a lucid analysis and reasonably exercised discretion in restricting the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. No reason was found to enhance the penalty or interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) had found that while concealment was established, the higher penalty rate of 300% was not justified by the facts.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) had found that while concealment was established, the AO failed to justify the imposition of penalty at the maximum rate of 300%.
The Tribunal held that companies registered under the Sikkim Companies Act, 1961, were not considered 'companies' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the impugned assessment years and were to be treated as AOPs. Therefore, the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reassessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding merit in the assessee's plea of denial of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not imposable as there was a reasonable cause for the failure, citing business exigencies and the need for cash payments to labourers and vehicle owners. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision in a similar case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had made a lucid analysis of the issues and exercised discretion reasonably in restricting the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The Tribunal found no reason to enhance the penalty or interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had found that while concealment was established, the higher penalty rate of 300% was not justified by the facts.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal held that even without Section 12A registration, the assessee is eligible for deduction of expenditure incurred against gross receipts. Considering the assessee as an association of persons, and noting that expenditures exceeded receipts, the addition of gross receipts was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the grant of exemption certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) was still pending before the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on any consequential order from the CIT(E).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.