Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted in the specified previous year, penalty should be levied under Section 271AAA. Subsection (3) of Section 271AAA specifically debars levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in such cases. Therefore, the penalty levied under the wrong section was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. This was to allow the assessee to produce additional evidence which was rejected by the CIT(A) for not satisfying Rule 46A conditions.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because a claim made by the assessee is not accepted or is considered excessive by the revenue. Additions made on an estimated basis or due to differences in opinion regarding allowability of expenses do not automatically amount to concealment of income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on statements recorded without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted issues with the timeliness of the assessment for one year and the lack of clarity on the reopening of assessment for another.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on statements recorded without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted issues with the timeliness of the assessment for one year and the lack of clarity on the reopening of assessment for another.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it was a legal issue with facts on record. However, it found no merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the invalidity of reassessment proceedings and the approval under Section 151.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on statements recorded without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted issues with the timeliness of the assessment for one year and the lack of clarity on the reopening of assessment for another.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper verification of the entire cash deposits during the assessment proceedings. Citing the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. judgment, the Tribunal found the PCIT's order under Section 263 to be justified.
The Tribunal held that an intimation under section 143(1) is not an assessment order. Therefore, the proviso to section 12A(2) cannot be invoked to claim exemption for AY 2018-19, as the registration was effective only from AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal found that Rs. 11.5 lakh of the FDRs and the corresponding interest belonged to the assessee's brother, as evidenced by bank statements and retirement benefit details. However, the remaining unexplained FDR investment and interest were sustained as additions.
The Tribunal held that a penalty order passed in the name of a deceased person without impleading the legal heir is not sustainable in law. The necessary legal formalities for bringing the legal heir on record were not completed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence to justify the allowability of interest expenses under Section 57 or Section 37 of the Act. The concurrent findings of the lower authorities were upheld due to the lack of supporting material from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the loan taken was for repaying a liability incurred for construction of the property, not for repaying an earlier loan. Therefore, the interest paid on this loan is allowable under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry, as evidenced by the 142(1) notice and the assessee's detailed reply. The Tribunal found no error in the AO's order or prejudice to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipt, found from a third party and denied by both parties, could not be considered incriminating evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the loan transaction itself was genuine, evidenced by banking channels and repayment with interest.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(E)'s order denying registration. It found that the assessee failed to prove its activities were for the general public and were hit by Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, making the denial of registration legally justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making additions on agricultural income. The assessment order was therefore considered bad in law.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for condonation of delay, finding the reasons provided to be vague, general, and unsubstantiated. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the 12-day delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. It directed the NFAC to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses found to be not genuine under Section 37(1) is distinct from unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. Therefore, Section 115BBE was not applicable.
The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, where identical issues led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) as unexplained investment. The assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the source of funds for the land purchase.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a certificate from Bombay Minerals Ltd, to explain the difference as advance payments for mining work. The lower authorities failed to appreciate these documents.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 45,10,700/- as unexplained investment. The assessee failed to provide evidence for the sale of agricultural produce and the genuineness of unsecured loans.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issue and conducted inquiries, making the order not erroneous. Furthermore, since the issue of agricultural income taxability was already adjudicated by the CIT(Appeals), the PCIT was precluded from revising the order under Section 263.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a de-novo consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide genuine evidence for agricultural sales and unsecured loans. The revised return was filed to cover the investment, and the addition was rightly made.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B would not impact the assessee's claim for exemption under section 11 and 12. It further observed that Section 13(9) of the Act, which links the due date of filing the return and statement to exemption, only applies to sub-section (2) of Section 11, which was not invoked by the assessee.
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) as the assessee's failure to disclose income was not bonafide and was only revealed after departmental action. The assessee's arguments were found to be distinguishable from established case law.
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) as the assessee's failure to disclose income was not bonafide and was only revealed after departmental action. The assessee's arguments were found to be distinguishable from established case law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantial investments in shares and made regular bank deposits and withdrawals, establishing a reasonable source for the Rs. 8 lakhs deposit. Therefore, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) as the assessee's failure to disclose income was not bonafide and was only revealed after departmental action. The assessee's arguments were found to be distinguishable from established case law.
The Tribunal held that the written submissions filed by one Shri D.R. Adhia were not considered due to a lack of Power of Attorney. Furthermore, the assessee failed to substantiate its claims regarding the genuineness of the cash credits, and the Assessing Officer's findings were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the companies were residents of the UAE based on their incorporation, business licenses, bank details, and tax residency certificates. Therefore, they were entitled to the benefits of the India-UAE DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the companies were residents of the UAE based on their incorporation, business licenses, bank details, and tax residency certificates. Therefore, they were entitled to the benefits of the India-UAE DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under section 80P by way of adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(v) was not permissible for the assessment year 2019-20 as the relevant amendment was not applicable. Therefore, the intimation under section 143(1) was invalid.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest expenses, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. For rental payments, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination due to non-consideration of submitted details. The disallowance of depreciation was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unwarranted because the assessee had subsequently filed details and that Section 273B allows for penalty waiver if there is a reasonable cause for the failure.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unwarranted because the assessee had subsequently filed details and that Section 273B allows for penalty waiver if there is a reasonable cause for the failure.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unwarranted because the assessee had subsequently filed details and that Section 273B allows for penalty waiver if there is a reasonable cause for the failure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding that the commission paid to related parties was at a fair market rate and supported by evidence. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unwarranted because the assessee had subsequently filed details and that Section 273B allows for penalty waiver if there is a reasonable cause for the failure.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's order was passed without proper opportunity to the assessee and in violation of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was unwarranted because the assessee had subsequently filed details and that Section 273B allows for penalty waiver if there is a reasonable cause for the failure.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for framing an assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147. Since the notice was issued beyond the statutory time limit, the assessment order was rendered invalid and not curable under section 292BB.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for framing an assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147. Since the notice was issued beyond the statutory time limit, the assessment order was rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee committed defaults, the penalty should be restricted to the first instance of non-compliance, following a precedent from the Delhi Tribunal. The penalty for subsequent defaults was deemed excessive.