Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be a genuine cessation or remission of liability. The Tribunal found that the liabilities written back by the assessee in a subsequent year would lead to double addition if taxed in the current year. Regarding the difference with M/s Kabra Brothers, it was attributed to book entries and discounting of letters of credit, not a cessation of liability.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of land occurred on April 2, 2011, when possession was handed over. The assessee had used the land for agricultural purposes up to this date, fulfilling the conditions of Section 54B. Therefore, the exemption was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the disallowance on an ad hoc basis without invoking Rule 8D and without considering the net interest income. The disallowance was not sustainable as it was made without following the prescribed procedure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without proper reasoning and without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the same agricultural lands were offered by the assessee's brother in his return, and his reassessment order was accepted. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of these new documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the second valuation report by the VO, which considered the assessee's objections after admitting a procedural lapse in the first report. The principle of Audi Alteram Partem was violated by not providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5.5 lakhs involved re-deposits in the bank account that were not properly verified by the AO. It also noted that taxing the same amount in the hands of multiple persons would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's turnover exceeded the audit limit, the penalty should be restricted to 0.5% of the admitted turnover, considering the facts and interest of justice. The penalty was thus reduced.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained requisite documents and accounts, as evidenced by the materials produced. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Mehta Parvesh, the Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 271A could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income does not arise when the assessee files a revised return offering the income to tax. Therefore, the penalty levied is deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A), stating that the assessee's failure to comply with duly served notices warranted the penalty. The assessee's contention of short notice periods was not accepted as no adjournment was sought.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to resolve the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and found no reason to keep the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed in terms of the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should be deleted. This was based on the fact that only one proper notice was served with inadequate time for reply, and partner disputes prevented compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of insufficient time was untenable as they did not request an extension or respond to notices. The refusal of summons further supported the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not reasonable cause, citing the legal maxim 'VIGILANTIBUS, NON. DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT'. The Tribunal also found that on merits, the assessee failed to discharge the onus to explain unexplained deposits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in confirming the disallowance. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Department is bound to follow it, making the adjustment under section 143(1) valid.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The AO had failed to properly verify the credit card payments and had not applied his mind to the facts, despite issuing a query. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revisional order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 263 by questioning the exemption of long-term capital gains, as this was not part of the original reasons recorded for reassessment under Section 147. The AO had consciously limited the scope of reassessment to the reasons provided.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in invoking section 263. It reasoned that non-collection of TCS doesn't automatically make purchases bogus, the issue was already pending before the CIT(A), and the AO's view was a possible interpretation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Since the Revenue had no objection, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the taxes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) should be deleted. This was based on the fact that only one proper notice was served with inadequate time for reply, and partner disputes prevented compliance.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was settled under the VSV scheme. Following CBDT clarifications on the VSV scheme, the penalty appeal was also considered settled. The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty appeal was related to the quantum appeal. As the quantum appeal was settled under the VSVS Scheme, the penalty appeal was also considered settled.
The Tribunal held that a claim for deduction, even if disallowed for being inaccurate due to late payment, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The element of dishonest intent or consciousness in furnishing inaccurate particulars must be present.
The Tribunal held that the interest income was shown net of interest expenses in the Profit & Loss account and thus did not constitute concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justifiable. The Tribunal noted that notices were not properly served, dates of hearing were not mentioned, and there was insufficient time for compliance, constituting reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no taxable income and no requirement to file a return, the penalty levied under Section 271F was not sustainable and should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income was below the taxable limit after the CIT(A) order, there was no requirement to file a return. Considering the assessee's ill health and subsequent passing, the penalty was deemed fit for deletion.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the expenses was not doubted and they were incurred out of undisclosed income already offered to tax. Disallowing these expenses would lead to double addition, and since they were added to work-in-progress, the claim was tax neutral for the current year.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to get accounts audited, the penalty under Section 271B should not be levied. This was because the income declared by the assessee was accepted by the AO without variation, indicating no revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the penalty notice did not contain a specific charge, and there was no clear finding by the Assessing Officer regarding concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted the absence of rejection of books of account.
The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimated basis, such as for unaccounted income retained at 10% and personal expenses, cannot be treated as concealment of income for penalty purposes. Furthermore, the penalty notice did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was imposed.
The Tribunal held that the Mumbai AO lacked jurisdiction as the assessee had effectively shifted to Rajkot and the AO had corresponded at the new address. Therefore, the assessment framed by the Mumbai AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which restricts appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. The present case did not fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had also applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for a related order, and sought to withdraw this appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus under Section 68 by furnishing necessary details regarding the identity, creditworthiness of parties, and genuineness of transactions. Therefore, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the impact of the Gujarat High Court's decision in Deepak Family Trust. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order could not be considered erroneous regarding import purchases as the PCIT's assumptions were based on incorrect data. However, it agreed with the PCIT that the AO failed to verify the diversion of interest-bearing funds and the provident fund contributions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) made sufficient inquiries during the original assessment. Citing Gujarat High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that dividend income from a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that adjustments for debatable issues, such as the disallowance of expenditure, cannot be made under Section 143(1). The disallowance of exemption under Section 11/12 and expenditures were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed verification of cash deposits and sales, and the addition made was justifiable. The PCIT's action was considered a review of the assessment order, which is not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 263 were not initiated in accordance with the law because the PCIT's satisfaction was based on a proposal from the Range Head, rather than the PCIT independently calling for and examining the records. Therefore, the revisional order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions regarding exempt income and Section 14A expenses. The Principal CIT's view that the inquiry was inadequate did not make the AO's order erroneous, as the AO had applied a plausible view after due verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries regarding the cash deposits during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT's action was considered a change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was not sustainable as the issue of accumulating deemed income under Section 11(3) is debatable. Therefore, such adjustments are not permissible under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the income from collecting electricity bills and associated expenses should be considered part of the co-operative society's activities for its members. The Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were not properly made.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the AO's comparison of physical stock found in April 2014 with the stock declared in the financial year 2007-08 was flawed. A business dealing in gold jewellery is a going concern with continuous purchases and sales, making such a comparison illogical.
The Tribunal held that while penalty is leviable for non-compliance of notices, it should not be imposed for each and every notice. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 for the first default was deemed sufficient, as the provision is deterrent and not for revenue generation.