Loading ITAT cases…
40 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that provision for standard assets is allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, as it is considered a provision for anticipated defaults on loans and advances. The Tribunal followed various ITAT decisions on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notices were issued on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the fund's approval was valid until March 31, 2014. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based on an incorrect assumption of facts is invalid. Since the approval was withdrawn on March 31, 2014, it was still valid on the date the reopening notices were issued.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in allowing the balance amount of loss. The CIT(A) had considered the assessee's supporting documents, including a certificate from the local Nagarpalika, and the fact that the loss was accounted for in the assessee's audit report.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the respondent's lack of objection. A subsequent order confirmed the assessee's eligibility for exemption and set-off of brought forward losses.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notices were based on an incorrect assumption of facts as the approval was withdrawn on March 31, 2014, and not before the notices were issued. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notices were based on an incorrect assumption of facts as the approval was withdrawn on March 31, 2014, and not before the notices were issued. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account and the estimation of Gross Profit at 0.37%. This was due to the assessee's persistent non-cooperation and failure to furnish necessary details to support its declared profit margins.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the Gujarat High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, allowed the benefit of higher depreciation. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of 5% of purchases from unregistered dealers was justified due to unverified transactions and discrepancies. The CIT(A) had not erred in confirming the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) followed due process in admitting the additional evidence, especially considering the assessee's non-resident status and the evidence's relevance to establishing the source of deposits. The Department's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that disallowing cost of improvement for non-production of bills for expenses incurred over 10 years ago was incorrect. It also found the explanation for cash deposits from sale consideration, redeposits, job work, and past savings to be reasonable.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had sustained the disallowance as the expenses were not in accordance with law and were in the nature of penalty. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing it.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to entertain additional claims, even if not made in the original return or revised return, provided the facts are on record and the claim is tenable. The assessee was therefore eligible for the additional deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not make adequate inquiries to ascertain the eligibility for deduction under section 54B, as only a copy of 7/12 was produced, which did not establish actual agricultural use. Therefore, the Principal CIT's order was found to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) followed due process in admitting the additional evidence, especially considering the assessee's non-resident status and the evidence's relevance to establishing the source of deposits. The Department's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the denial of Section 80P deduction due to late filing of the return cannot be made through a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1)(a), especially as the relevant enabling provision was introduced later. The Tribunal emphasized that such disallowances should be made during regular assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that Section 206C(1A) does not prescribe a time limit for filing Form 27C, and a minor delay in filing, if the declaration is genuine, should not defeat the assessee's claim. The lower authorities erred in not verifying the forms.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal despite multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) had already partly allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption was incorrect. It noted that Form 10B was filed with the original return, and the belated filing of Form 10 with the revised return, along with the fact that the accumulated funds were invested as per Section 11(5), should have been considered.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to collect any independent evidence to demonstrate under-invoicing and that the addition was solely based on a commission's report, which was not sufficient for making additions. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and its late filing should not be an impediment to claiming exemption, especially when substantial compliance is made. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the income from share sales, and therefore, it could not be considered concealment of particulars of income. The claim, even if not accepted by the AO, was an inaccurate claim, not inaccurate particulars, and thus penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasoning was contradictory and that the market price would be lower if export incentives were considered. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal found no reason to disturb the assessee's method of closing stock valuation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for non-compliance with the notices due to the serious criminal proceedings against its directors. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that an addition on account of peak cash balance in the bank cannot be made if the peak balance is positive, as it indicates surplus cash. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case where ex-parte orders were upheld due to the assessee's non-cooperation.
The tribunal held that the assessee's failure to provide explanations for non-compliance with statutory notices and for not filing the return of income was not justified. The pendency of a quantum appeal did not absolve the assessee of these defaults.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case where ex-parte orders were upheld due to the assessee's non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the gas connection charges were revenue in nature. The expenditure was incurred solely to facilitate the supply of gas, which was used as fuel, and did not result in the creation of any asset or enduring benefit for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that late deposit of employees' contribution to ESI/PF leads to disallowance as per Section 36(1)(va). However, the deduction under Section 80JJA should be allowed as filing the audit report during appellate proceedings is a procedural requirement.
The Tribunal found that a significant portion of the expenses were paid through bank accounts and by cheque, contradicting the AO's findings. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance made by the AO was deemed unjustifiable.
The tribunal held that the assessee's failure to provide explanations for non-compliance with statutory notices and for not filing the return of income was not justified. The pendency of a quantum appeal did not absolve the assessee of these defaults.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case where ex-parte orders were upheld due to the assessee's non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount, representing excess stock and renovation expenses, was part of the assessee's business. Since the assessee explained the source as undisclosed business income and booked corresponding purchases, it was rightly treated as business income, not deemed income under Sections 69A and 69C.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of several disallowances related to damages, settlement expenses, and other claims. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing that depreciation on an electricity line be treated as revenue expenditure and allowing contribution to a PWD road as a business expense.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to higher depreciation at 30% on dumpers and tippers. This decision was based on the fact that the vehicles were provided on hire and the assessee's business involved transportation services, aligning with previous ITAT rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of several disallowances related to damages, settlement expenses, and other claims. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing that depreciation on an electricity line be treated as revenue expenditure and allowing contribution to a PWD road as a business expense.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to pass a fresh order on merits. The CIT(A) was instructed to give adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case.