Loading ITAT cases…
564 orders · Page 12 of 12
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee on the issue of settlement charges paid to SEBI, following its own precedents. For gratuity payment and incorrect computation of income, the Assessing Officer was directed to verify facts and provide relief.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's subsequent amendment of the impugned object clauses. Since the original rejection was based on these clauses and no opportunity for amendment was given, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits, with a direction to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Assessee sought to withdraw the current appeal, stating it was filed due to an inadvertent mistake. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had not conducted a proper inquiry into the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable, as the property was transferred by a relative of the Assessee, and the transaction was protected from the rigors of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under this section was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the assessee admitted the mistake, filed a revised computation, and provided reasons for not revising the return due to it being belated. Additionally, the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars, while proceedings were initiated for concealment of income, which is a distinct limb.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business involved collecting cash sales, and deposits made after the demonetization deadline were due to the peculiar nature of business operations and delivery logistics. The Tribunal found no justification for making additions to such cash deposits.
The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the sub-contract expenses due to lack of supporting documentation. The work order alone was not considered sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) could not decide the issue properly due to lack of relevant documents from the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance by the AO was ad-hoc and without basis, especially since the Assessee provided detailed expenses and ledger accounts. It was also noted that the Assessee had opening and closing stock, indicating business activity. The Tribunal allowed expenses aggregating to Rs. 9,15,019/- in full and restricted the remaining disallowance to 10%.
The Tribunal noted that making additions in both the hands of the lender and the assessee would lead to double additions, which is impermissible. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to ascertain the final outcome of additions in the lender's hands.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting that the Learned DR did not object. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting that the Learned DR did not object. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings, finding them to go to the root of the case. It held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections rendered the reassessment proceedings bad in law. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to adjudicate these additional grounds on merits after verifying assessment records and providing an opportunity of hearing.