Loading ITAT cases…
405 orders · Page 3 of 9
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed a previous order which was set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to his file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were indeed bogus, a 100% disallowance was not permissible as the sales were not doubted. Following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT precedents, a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, such as conducting seminars and selling publications, were in furtherance of its charitable object of advancing the Fragrance and Flavours industry. These activities were not commercial in nature and the surplus generated was incidental.
The Tribunal noted that the issue had become academic as a co-ordinate bench had already decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, following a consistent view from a previous assessment year, restricted the additions to 12.5% but allowed a concession for the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. This resulted in net additions of 7.22%.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the limitation period for imposing penalty must be calculated with reference to the first ITAT order, not the subsequent miscellaneous application order. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) to determine the service date of the first order and decide the penalty's validity.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the factual matrix adequately, particularly regarding the valuation loss claimed by the assessee. The CIT's revisional order was justified as the assessment was not conducted with due diligence.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct adequate investigation to prove the purchases were bogus, despite the assessee providing documentary evidence. The Tribunal, following precedents, restricted the additions to 2% of such purchases.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. The payments were made within the due date for filing the return of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO had not understood the assessee's business model and that the cash deposits and commission income were adequately explained and part of the assessee's declared income.
The Tribunal found that while the transactions appeared jumbled, the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to support their claim. However, due to the complexity and the need for further verification, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 3 crore addition. It found the diary entries relied upon were incomprehensible and lacked evidentiary value, and that statements made during a survey do not automatically have legal standing.
The Tribunal noted that its prior order had set aside the revision order under Section 263. Consequently, the assessment order passed giving effect to the revision order would not survive.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim which is not allowable in a particular year, but is otherwise genuine and allowable in a subsequent year, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and passed without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to admit additional evidence, finding it vital and relevant for adjudication. Consequently, all remaining grounds of appeal were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous ruling in the assessee's own case. It held that depreciation is allowable even if the asset cost was claimed as application of income, accumulation of 15% income is permissible, and excess application of income can be carried forward.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked a decision on merits. The Revenue's representative conceded that the issue was not decided on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied on an estimated disallowance under Section 40A(3) without sufficient material to substantiate the contravention by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the adverse inferences were drawn based on documents seized from other entities and statements of employees of a related party, not directly attributable to the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order had become infructuous as the assessment order itself was quashed by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was affirmed on different grounds.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot rectify an order giving effect to a previous Tribunal order under Section 154 if the issue was not part of the original appeal or decided by the Tribunal. Any mistake was in the original assessment order, not the order giving effect to the Tribunal's directions.
The Tribunal found that the nature of compulsion for the investments and the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. were not adequately discussed by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order had become infructuous as the assessment order itself was quashed by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was affirmed on different grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that gains from share transactions should be treated as capital gains, not business income, relying on CBDT Circular 6/2016. It also affirmed that derivative trading losses are not speculative business losses due to the assessee's income profile and the proviso to Section 43(5).
The Tribunal held that the sales-tax incentive received from the state government is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case and group cases.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The ground challenging the reopening of assessment was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that interest-bearing security deposits, when used to repay borrowed capital, can be considered as borrowed money. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was upheld.
The Tribunal held that Section 57(ii) allows for depreciation on assets when computing income from other sources. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the depreciation claim against lease rental income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including collecting fees from guests and for swimming camps, were in furtherance of its charitable object of promoting sports and did not alter its charitable character. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The tribunal restored the commission expenses issue to the AO for the assessee to provide details of services rendered by commission agents. For conveyance and travel expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the total expenditure.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessees were directed to cooperate with the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that entrance fees, being a condition precedent for membership and a price for admission to privileges, are capital receipts. They are not voluntary contributions and are not taxable as income.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the disallowances were either deleted when vouchers were produced or reasonably restricted to 10% where vouchers were lacking, with sufficient reasoning provided. The cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO is duty-bound to wait for the Valuation Officer's report before finalizing the assessment when a reference is made. Failure to do so renders the assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly supported by earlier withdrawals from the same account, which had a substantial opening balance. Additions cannot be made merely on suspicion.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance as there was no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A), noting that this was consistent with High Court judgments and the Tribunal's own prior decision in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for natural justice and allowing the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that while Sections 41(1) and 56 were not applicable, the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the liabilities. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search and where original assessments had not abated, additions under Section 153C are not permissible. The ratio of the Bombay High Court in Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
The Tribunal held that the ALV of unsold flats, even if part of closing stock, is assessable as deemed rental income under the head 'Income from House Property'. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessees were directed to cooperate with the proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.