Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal directed the AO to levy interest under sections 234A and 234B only on the income returned by the assessee, not on the assessed income, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Since the notice in this case was generic and did not strike out the irrelevant portion, the penalty imposed was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden under Section 68 by providing evidence of the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and lacked contradictory evidence, thus they could not be sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest charged under Section 234B on assessed income. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and documentary evidence, and the director's alleged admissions were not conclusively established. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dead person is not maintainable in law. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal cancelled the assessment order.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the AO wrongly considered the capital account in the books of Chandra Timber as the individual account of the assessee. The addition was also made on opening balances, which was held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be applied to a deduction claimed under Section 57. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ajay Prakash Verma vs. ITO, held that interest under sections 234A and 234B can only be levied on the income declared by the assessee in the return of income, not on the assessed income.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice under Section 274 must specify the exact charge against the assessee. Since the notice in this case was vague and did not strike out the irrelevant portion, the imposition of penalty could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that if the transfer date was indeed March 5, 2010, the capital gain would be taxable in Assessment Year 2010-11, not 2011-12. Therefore, the assessment order for AY 2011-12 was considered bad in law due to jurisdictional error.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice under Section 274 must specify the charge against the assessee. Failure to do so, by not striking out the irrelevant portion, renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice under Section 274 must specify the charge against the assessee. Since the notice was vague and did not strike out irrelevant portions, the penalty imposed was unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It held that since the donations were already declared as income by the assessee, a fresh addition as income was not permissible. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's second ground as misconceived.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done on the grounds of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits is bad in law. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit. The Assessing Officer had not provided any comparable cases to justify his higher estimation.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Since the notice in this case was generic and did not strike out the irrelevant portion, the penalty imposed was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice under Section 274 must specify the charge against the assessee. Since the notice was vague and did not strike out irrelevant portions, the penalty imposed was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice under Section 274 must specify the charge against the assessee. Since the notice was vague and did not strike out irrelevant portions, the penalty imposed was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice under Section 274 must specify the charge against the assessee. Since the notice was vague and did not strike out irrelevant portions, the penalty imposed was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on third-party valuation for stock and the lack of proper consideration of the assessee's objections were problematic. Therefore, both issues were remanded to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) due to issues with their authorized representative.
The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on third-party valuation for stock and the lack of proper consideration of the assessee's objections were problematic. Therefore, both issues were remanded to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate to 5% of the total turnover, acknowledging the lack of books of accounts and referencing Section 44AF. It also directed that interest under sections 234A and 234B be levied only on the income declared in the return, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions. The addition under Section 40A(3) was deleted as the AO wrongly presumed cash payment. The addition for concealed profit was deleted as the CIT(A) found that a significant portion of sales was received by cheque and the AO's estimation was without basis.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the issues on merit, and the Assessing Officer also failed to consider all evidence. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the details of expenditure were not before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the fuel expenditure details.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by estimating the net profit at 1% of the total turnover, a slight increase from the assessee's declared profit. It also deleted additions made on account of undisclosed purchases, finding them based on surmises and conjectures, and directed that interest under sections 234A and 234B be levied only on the income returned by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the issues challenged by the Revenue was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it did not meet the minimum tax effect threshold. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and therefore remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the investments were made by the partners in their individual capacity and accounted for in their individual returns needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer. If accounted for by the partners, no addition can be made in the hands of the firm.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. This circular specifies monetary limits for filing appeals.