Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits and without considering the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case on similar facts. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a set-off of the gross profit already declared in its books of accounts against the ad-hoc profit added by the AO, to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that a partner's share of profit from a firm is exempt under Section 10(2A) and cannot be treated as an unexplained cash credit merely because the partnership firm did not pay taxes on its declared income. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.
The ITAT held that the Excel sheets relied upon by the AO did not accurately represent the true stock position and could not be considered parallel books of account. The tribunal found that discrepancies in the Excel sheets, such as unrecorded manufacturing and sales, and the absence of physical stock variations, rendered the AO's reliance on them unreliable.
The ITAT held that the Excel sheets relied upon by the AO did not represent parallel books of account and had significant discrepancies. The tribunal noted that physical stock matched book stock, and no evidence of unaccounted sales was found, thus invalidating the AO's method of calculating stock differences.
The Tribunal held that the excel sheets could not be considered sacrosanct parallel books of account. It noted discrepancies, including unrecorded manufacture/sale of medallions and coins, and no difference between physical and book stock at the time of search. Therefore, additions based solely on these sheets were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the excel sheets could not be considered sacrosanct parallel books of account. It noted discrepancies, including unrecorded manufacture/sale of medallions and coins, and no difference between physical and book stock at the time of search. Therefore, additions based solely on these sheets were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits and without considering the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case on similar facts. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts were on behalf of Vodafone M-Pesa and not the assessee's turnover, thus deleting the addition. It also held that TDS provisions under Section 194-I were not applicable for the relevant assessment year as the assessee was not subjected to tax audit in the preceding year.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's agreement to produce documentary evidence and decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide an opportunity for the assessee to furnish all relevant documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be rejected without disturbing the sales in the case of a trader. It found no error in the CIT(A)'s order and distinguished the Supreme Court ruling relied upon by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that disallowing entire purchases solely because suppliers did not file returns is not justified, especially when sales and gross profit were not disputed. The addition should be limited to the estimated Gross Profit (GP) rate.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, as per Rule 37BA(3)(i). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the assessee's claim was an incorrect claim under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and thus liable for disallowance. The arguments of the assessee's counsel were rejected.
The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., delayed payments of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts are not allowable as deductions. Such claims are considered incorrect claims, even for prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., delayed payments of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts are not allowable as deductions. Such claims are considered incorrect claims apparent from the return.
The CIT(A) deleted the protective addition, observing that disallowing both receipts and corresponding expenses would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The dismissal by the CIT(A) was considered ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal, following precedents from the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts and a coordinate bench decision, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the Section 10AA deduction as it was not an issue raised in the grounds of appeal and had been allowed in earlier years. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on the correct tax rate applicable to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided an adequate opportunity of being heard and decided the appeal on merits, even in an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to verify if the source of the unsecured loan was explained by the lending company declaring it under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If confirmed, no addition can be made to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably substantiated the source of deposits by providing bank statements, cash flow statements, and details of family members dependent on him. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments stating that past savings and source of deposits should be considered, and the revenue cannot demand an explanation for the utilization of withdrawn cash if it was available.
The Tribunal held that the fixed deposits were made for the purpose of bank guarantees required for business activities. Therefore, the interest income should be assessed under the head 'profit and gains of business' and not 'income from other sources'.
The CIT(A) mistakenly dismissed the appeal arising from the section 147 order, believing it was covered by the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal found this to be a bona fide mistake and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A was beyond the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction as it was issued more than six years after the search on the India Bulls Group, and no incriminating material was found during the search of the assessee's premises. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153A was declared null and void.
The ITAT held that the Excel sheets relied upon by the AO did not represent parallel books of account and had significant discrepancies. The tribunal noted that physical stock matched book stock, and no evidence of unaccounted sales was found, thus invalidating the AO's method of calculating stock differences.
The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be rejected without disturbing the sales in the case of a trader. It found no error in the CIT(A)'s order and distinguished the Supreme Court ruling relied upon by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the assessee's claim was an incorrect claim under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) and thus liable for disallowance. The arguments of the assessee's counsel were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a set-off of the gross profit already declared in its books of accounts against the ad-hoc profit added by the AO, to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a set-off of the gross profit already declared in its books of accounts against the ad-hoc profit added by the AO, to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the Indian company acted on a principal-to-principal basis, the assessee had no business connection in India, and no operations were carried out in India. Therefore, no income was taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that an appeal under Section 248 is maintainable even when the assessee claims a lower tax deduction rate, not just a complete denial of liability. The phrase 'no tax was required to be deducted' should be interpreted to include claims for excess tax deducted.
The Tribunal held that an appeal under Section 248 is maintainable even when the assessee claims a lower tax deduction rate, not just a complete denial of liability. The phrase 'no tax was required to be deducted' should be interpreted to include claims for excess tax deducted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the telescopic benefit as it involved fraudulent activity and falsification of accounts. The rectification made by the CIT(A) regarding the mistake apparent on record was deemed proper and in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the dates of contribution. If contributions were made on or before the statutory due dates, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) would be warranted for those amounts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to the telescopic benefit as it involved fraudulent activity and falsification of accounts. The rectification made by the CIT(A) regarding the mistake apparent on record was deemed proper and in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing interest expenses without providing reasons for the assessment proceedings. It also noted that the property was purchased along with shares and debentures, which were part of the overall cost.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that no appeal should be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular is also applicable to pending cases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that since the assessee agreed to remove the problematic clause from its Memorandum of Association, the matter should be restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the interest income needs to be examined to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and exemption under the mutuality concept. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made purely on an estimated basis. Following a coordinate bench decision and High Court rulings, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made purely on an estimated basis. Following a coordinate bench decision, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred in the normal course of carrying on business to capture the market and could not be considered capital in nature. It also clarified that the treatment in the books of account does not bar a claim for revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act, and revenue expenses are allowable even if income has not yet been received, provided the business is set up.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, noting inconsistencies in profit estimation for bogus purchases and lack of credible reasons for rejecting the assessee's cash book.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings on one ground (concealment of income) and levying penalty on another (furnishing inaccurate particulars) violates the principles of natural justice. The penalty order was quashed as being bad in law.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored all three issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, setting aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper reasons and that the transaction did not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. The additions made by the AO were therefore considered erroneous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant exemption under Section 11, following previous decisions in the assessee's own cases. The issue of Section 10(23C) exemption was considered academic. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute income considering specific grounds and allowed TDS credit for statistical purposes.