Loading ITAT cases…
477 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal held that merely because cash withdrawals exceeded cash deposits does not automatically prove that the deposits originated from withdrawals. The assessee failed to establish a linkage between withdrawals and deposits or provide other supporting documents for the utilization of withdrawn cash.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not follow the applicable rent control legislation when determining the deemed rent. The AO should either fix the standard rent as per the legislation or leave it to the court/tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of construction costs was based on unscientific methods and presumptions. The Tribunal recalculated the construction cost based on standard practices and the assessee's submitted expenses, finding it within reasonable limits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the disallowance of Rs. 4 lakh as bad debts because the amount was recovered and offered to tax in the subsequent year. The issue of Rs. 2,82,855 was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication due to a non-speaking order.
The tribunal admitted the error and corrected the previous order. The disallowance on account of making charges amounting to Rs.49,83,491/- for AY 2014-15 was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper reasoning and required fresh examination. Therefore, all issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal admitted the error and corrected the previous order. The disallowance on account of making charges amounting to Rs.49,83,491/- for AY 2014-15 was directed to be deleted.
The tribunal admitted the error and corrected the previous order. The disallowance on account of making charges amounting to Rs.49,83,491/- for AY 2014-15 was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the Revenue's appeal due to the assessee being under insolvency proceedings and the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The AO was given liberty to restore the appeal after the moratorium period.
The Tribunal held that the source of Rs. 5,25,114 could be satisfactorily explained from the cash available in old currency notes before demonetisation. However, the remaining amount of Rs. 74,886 was not satisfactorily explained.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were bogus, the entire amount could not be added as income for a trader if sales were not disputed. The addition should be restricted to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were bogus, the entire amount could not be added as income for a trader if sales were not disputed. The addition should be restricted to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified because the AO had not properly verified crucial aspects like revenue reconciliation and expense reimbursement. The assessee's failure to appear before the PCIT further supported this decision.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds temporarily invested for the project, as per loan agreements restricting its use solely for project implementation, should be treated as capital receipt and reduced from capital work-in-progress, not taxed as income from other sources. However, expenses related to work-in-progress were upheld as not allowable against interest income.
The Tribunal held that mesne profits received for deprivation of use of property are in the nature of damages and constitute a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, without bringing the legal heir on record, is void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that mesne profits received for deprivation of use of property are in the nature of damages and constitute a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity, after a company has been amalgamated and lost its existence, is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, dismissing the assessee's appeals. The assessee's failure to provide evidence for cash credits, membership fees, share capital, and expenses, despite multiple opportunities, led to the confirmation of additions.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's concerns were not valid. The commission payments were for essential services, and the assessee had demonstrated transparency. The Tribunal upheld the AO's order and set aside the PCIT's revision.
The Tribunal held that mesne profits received for deprivation of use of property are in the nature of damages and constitute a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. This decision was based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, dismissing the assessee's appeals. The assessee's failure to provide evidence for cash credits, membership fees, share capital, and expenses, despite multiple opportunities, led to the confirmation of additions.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of expenses should be excluded from revenues and costs for comparability analysis, and the ALP adjustment on recovery of expenses should be deleted. The appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 without conducting his own independent inquiry, especially when the AO had already made inquiries and taken a plausible view. The CIT(E)'s order was based on conjecture and suspicion.