Loading ITAT cases…
320 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were incorrect and contrary to the Income Tax Act. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the AO could not review their own order without fresh material.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for carry forward of loss is to be determined in the year the set-off is claimed, not the year the loss is incurred. It also found that the revisionary order was passed beyond the time limit for disturbing the assessment and that the rectification order itself was infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments and no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal on other grounds related to transfer pricing.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was barred as the issues revised had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A) in appeal. The principle of merger applies, preventing revisional powers over matters decided in appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was barred as the issues revised had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A) in appeal. The principle of merger applies, preventing revisional powers over matters decided in appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO should verify if the assessee had indeed filed a return for the current year, as claimed. If a return was filed, the assessment should be based on it. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to reconsider the purchases in light of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Mohammad Hazi Adam & Co. The AO was directed to examine the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was barred as the issues revised had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A) in appeal. The principle of merger applies, preventing revisional powers over matters decided in appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable based on the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. The revenue failed to demonstrate that the case fell under any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, which allowed carry forward of deficits. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that loans from directors and group entities substantiated with required documents were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). However, for loans where only confirmations were provided, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further evidence. Additions under Section 69 and 69B were deleted as the transactions were in regular books of accounts and lacked corroborative evidence and cross-examination.
The tribunal disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted additional evidence, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their claim promptly.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on ad-hoc or estimated additions, especially when the assessee has provided documentary evidence and made payments through banking channels. The conduct of the assessee was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an estimated addition when the assessee has provided explanations and supporting documents, and the addition is based on presumption rather than conclusive evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore it if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on ad-hoc additions made on an estimated basis without conclusively establishing concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission expenses and the addition of capital introduction were made without proper application of mind by the lower authorities. The Tribunal found that the AO did not issue notices to commission recipients and the CIT(A) relied on hyper-technicalities.
The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude inter-group transactions and allow telescoping of commission income against income declared in the books of account. It also directed verification and allowance of certain expenses related to business loss.