Loading ITAT cases…
553 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal held that the earlier transaction could not be considered a continuation and rejected the assessee's claim to use the 2008 valuation. However, it allowed the assessee's alternative plea to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation as of the 2017 agreement date.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and partly allowed the quantum appeals, directing fresh adjudication on amortization. The penalty appeal was allowed as the basis for the penalty no longer survived.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and file supporting documents, including an affidavit.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and file supporting documents, including an affidavit.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to explain the delay and file supporting documents, including an affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s attempt to rectify the order under Section 154 to include a fresh jurisdictional direction was an impermissible review of a concluded appellate decision and was ultra vires. The rectification order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of purchases with cogent evidence and relied only on book entries, the entire expenditure pertaining to bogus purchases was rightly disallowed. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. was relied upon.
The assessee's Authorized Representative filed an application for withdrawal of both appeals. Consequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution for delayed deposit is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the employer's contribution, if deposited within the due date for filing the return of income, is allowable under Section 43B.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including details of her husband's employment and bank statements, which were crucial to establishing the source of investment. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of purchases with cogent evidence and relied only on book entries, the entire expenditure pertaining to bogus purchases was rightly disallowed. The decision of the jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were treated as part of work-in-progress and not debited to the profit and loss account, and the assessee followed the completed contract method, the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong expenses did not arise. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were treated as part of work-in-progress and not debited to the profit and loss account, and the assessee followed the completed contract method, the question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong expenses did not arise. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The assessee's Authorized Representative filed an application for withdrawal of both appeals. Consequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision followed previous rulings by the Tribunal and the CIT(A) in similar cases.
The Tribunal followed a Bombay High Court judgment which held that rejecting applications solely for the absence of explicit irrevocability/dissolution clauses is untenable. The Tribunal also held that answering 'Yes' to the irrevocability question in Form 10AB, in the absence of such a clause, should not be treated as furnishing false information.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on a misapplication of law and disregard of binding judicial directions from the Bombay High Court. The absence of an explicit irrevocability clause cannot be a ground for rejection, and the assessee had substantially complied with the requirements.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution, as the assessee did not appear for hearings or file any submissions despite opportunities. The decision was made based on the available records without delving into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 205 days in filing the first appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to decide the appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the Central Excise proceedings were about undervaluation, not unaccounted sales. The assessee provided documentary evidence showing sales were accounted for, and the Revenue failed to disprove this.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The Tribunal found the reasons for delay to be genuine and unintentional, and therefore remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that inflating stock valuation for bank credit limits does not automatically warrant an addition in the hands of the assessee, especially when books of accounts are not found defective and there's no evidence of unaccounted purchases. The matter was remanded for fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the sales transactions needed further reconciliation to establish their genuineness and to avoid overlapping claims in different assessment years. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the documentation submitted by the assessee for the loan additions and demonetization deposits. For the Section 50C addition, it was held that the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO in case of a distress sale claim.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A cannot be levied when the addition is based on estimation and not on conclusive evidence. The assessee's offer of income to avoid litigation does not amount to misreporting.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Ground No. 1, challenging the reopening of assessment, was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 2, concerning the addition of Rs. 46,00,000/- under Section 68, the Tribunal, after considering the unrebutted documents placed on record by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, and in view of decisions of coordinate benches in similar cases involving the same investors (Sandesh Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Varad Vinayak Estates Pvt. Ltd.), deleted the addition. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 68 was added by the Finance Act, 2012, effective from April 1, 2013, and thus not applicable to the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal also relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. to hold that once the identity and genuineness of share applicants are established, the onus shifts to the Revenue. Consequently, Ground No. 2 was allowed. As the other grounds were consequential to Ground No. 2, they did not require separate adjudication. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the trust deed was furnished. It held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to explain its objects and activities. Consequently, both applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A cannot be levied when the addition is based on estimation and not on conclusive evidence. The assessee's offer of income to avoid litigation does not amount to misreporting.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the trust deed was furnished. It held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to explain its objects and activities. Consequently, both applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC. It found that the donation was bogus, as the political party was engaged in a tax evasion racket.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the plausible reasons provided by the legal heir. Due to the death of the assessee and the absence of proper submissions, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unwarranted. The AO had conducted detailed inquiries and applied their mind, taking a plausible view that was also upheld by the Tribunal and High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier years.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution, as the assessee did not appear for hearings or file any submissions despite opportunities. The decision was made based on the available records without delving into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the double deduction was a bona fide computational mistake and not an intentional under-reporting of income. Since the assessee voluntarily disclosed the error and offered it for taxation, the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence filed by the assessee was material and required examination by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on interest paid to SRA, following a coordinate bench decision. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer as per Section 50C(2) when the assessee disputed the stamp duty value. The addition made under Section 50C was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, following its own previous decisions in similar circumstances. The assessee was directed to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the assessee were squarely covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no change in law or facts to warrant a departure from the settled position.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the amount received was a pending part of the sale consideration from a previously taxed transaction and thus could not be treated as unexplained. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's reliance on Project Falcon data without specific corroboration was insufficient. The Tribunal also found that the lender's financial standing and the genuineness of the loan transaction were sufficiently proved.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction without examining the validity of the prior approval obtained under Section 153D. The revisionary orders were quashed as the assessment orders were passed with the necessary statutory approval.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the amount received was a pending part of the sale consideration from a previously taxed transaction and thus could not be treated as unexplained. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the evidence submitted by the assessee to substantiate the expenses. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the registered valuer's report for the property valuation and restored the issue of deemed income to the AO for reference to the DVO. For unexplained investment, the Tribunal accepted most of the claimed loans from family members and personal savings, deleting a significant portion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the assessee did not get a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the principal amount of loan waived is not chargeable to tax under Section 28(iv) or Section 41(1) as it is in the nature of money and not a trading liability. The reassessment was also quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction without examining the validity of the prior approval obtained under Section 153D. The revisionary orders were quashed as the assessment orders were passed with the necessary statutory approval.