Loading ITAT cases…
87 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals), finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act to prove the genuineness of the share capital received. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding denial of opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal held that the rectification applications were not maintainable as they were filed beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) order upholding this dismissal was therefore confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision that the rectification applications were barred by limitation as per Section 154(7) of the Act, which prescribes a four-year period for amendments.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that crucial annexures, which formed the basis for the additions, were not provided. This lack of information violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- as bogus liability. The assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation or representation before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had erred by dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts and without deciding the issues on merits, due to a confusion with another appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B for delayed deposit of employee's contribution was debatable. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that provisions for computerization, being contingent liabilities, cannot be deducted as expenditure but depreciation on capitalized capital expenditure will be allowed. It also noted that contributions to the District Union for training funds are appropriations of profit and not deductible expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, accepting the assessee's explanation of being a remote society with less educated staff and inadvertent mistakes. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal noted that the statutory audit was completed on March 6, 2014, the tax auditor was appointed on October 17, 2014, and the tax audit report was completed on November 21, 2014, all after the due date of September 30, 2013. However, the Tribunal found that the appointment of the tax auditor was made by the regulatory body (Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur) after the due date, and the audit report was filed promptly by the assessee upon receipt. Citing judicial pronouncements, including Hindustan Steel Ltd. and Iqbalpur Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., the Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in completion and submission of the tax audit report as the appointment of the auditor was beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that parties not acting diligently are not entitled to condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that delay must be explained with reasonable diligence and that negligence or carelessness cannot be condoned.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the delayed deposit of employees' contributions towards PF and ESIC. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses, as per the Companies Act, are not necessarily for the purpose of business under Section 37(1) and should be considered for book profit calculation. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses, as per the Companies Act, are not necessarily for the purpose of business under Section 37(1) and should be considered for book profit calculation. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that parties not acting diligently are not entitled to condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that parties not acting diligently are not entitled to condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that parties not acting diligently are not entitled to condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that parties not acting diligently are not entitled to condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that parties not acting diligently are not entitled to condonation of delay.
The Tribunal found that substantial questions regarding the validity of the land transaction and the assessee's legal recourse against alleged fraudsters were not examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge his statutory obligation by not clearly specifying the default in the show cause notices. The use of 'or' between 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' rendered the notice vague.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses, as per the Companies Act, are not necessarily for the purpose of business under Section 37(1) and should be considered for book profit calculation. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals as duplicate, as they pertained to different quarters. The Tribunal further held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals as duplicate, as they pertained to different quarters. The Tribunal further held that the levy of fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was without authority of law.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals due to the subsequent rectification and refund. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals as duplicate, as they pertained to different quarters. The Tribunal further ruled that late filing fees under Section 234E could not be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, when processing TDS statements under Section 200A.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals due to the subsequent rectification and refund. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The tribunal held that the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted by bringing the GP rate of such purchases at par with genuine purchases. It also set aside the rejection of books of accounts and restored the issue of disallowance of expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine, the addition should be restricted to the profit margin, not the entire purchase amount. The matter was restored to the AO to recalculate the addition based on the GP rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory requirement of obtaining a certificate from an accountant (Form 26A) to prove that the payees had included the interest income and paid tax. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was based on misconceived facts and suffered from perversity. The appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to verify the nature and source of the cash deposits, which formed the basis for reopening the case. Therefore, the PCIT rightly set aside the assessment order for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as there was prima facie material (AIR information) for the AO to believe income had escaped assessment. The PCIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order because the AO failed to conduct necessary verifications.
The Tribunal held that the order imposing penalty under Section 270A is appealable before the CIT(Appeals) as it falls under Chapter XXI of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) had wrongly dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds.
The Tribunal held that once the AO rejected the assessee's claim of sourcing investment from a cash loan, the department could not subsequently infer the existence of such a loan to levy penalty under Section 271D. The penalty was vacated as it was based on a contradictory premise.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the assessee's explanation for the stock deficit unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted the assessee did not provide this explanation during the survey and the claim was inconsistent with their overall turnover.
The tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A as no exempt income was earned. The addition on account of delayed ESIC payment was also deleted based on Supreme Court ruling. The adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation was vacated but the carry-forward amount was scaled down.