Loading ITAT cases…
19 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law because the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision stating that a clear finding on the specific charge is mandatory for levying penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the higher DVO valuation for the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, even if not claimed initially, as per CBDT circulars. The Tribunal also directed the AO to admit additional evidence regarding cash deposits and adjudicate afresh.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have the power under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, as it stood for the relevant assessment year, to substitute the value determined by a registered valuer. The AO could only refer the valuation to a Valuation Officer if the assessee's claimed value was less than the fair market value, which was not the case here.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding gift expenses, foreign travel, and machinery repairs, finding that some disallowances were justified while others were not. The Revenue's appeals were largely dismissed.
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment, held that JADA's activities were for the advancement of general public utility and not in the nature of trade or business. Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 was applicable.
The Tribunal held that the difference in closing stock pertained to personal share trading and was duly disclosed in the personal balance sheet, directing its deletion. Regarding the GP rate, the Tribunal found the comparison to another business inappropriate due to different business activities and the initial year of operation, also directing deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of salary and wages, stating that the AO did not reject the books of accounts and the disallowance was ad hoc. It also deleted the disallowance of salary to relatives, finding no excessive payments were made.
The Tribunal held that loose papers found from a third party, without corroborative evidence or opportunity for cross-examination, do not have sufficient evidentiary value to make an addition to the assessee's income. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the income is determined on an estimated basis. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the gift was not genuine and confirmed the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in identical cases involving the same assessee and donor, emphasizing that the genuineness of a gift is a question of fact.
The Tribunal held that the issuance and service of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory condition for completing reassessment proceedings. Since this mandatory notice was not issued or served, the assessment order was void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the income is determined on an estimated basis. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the income is determined on an estimated basis. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the gift was not genuine and confirmed the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in identical cases involving the same assessee and donor, emphasizing that the genuineness of a gift is a question of fact.