Loading ITAT cases…
52 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the issue of maintaining books of accounts was debatable for the assessee, who acted as a transport agent without personal turnover. Therefore, the penalty imposed deserved to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as there was no indication of on-money or cash transactions, and the discrepancy was solely based on the stamp value adopted for registration purposes. It was neither a case of concealment nor furnishing inadequate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the issue of maintaining books of accounts was debatable for the assessee, who acted as a transport agent without personal turnover. Therefore, the penalty imposed deserved to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54F is available only if the investment is made in the assessee's own name. Following the principle of adopting the view in favour of the assessee when there are conflicting High Court decisions, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal decided to adopt consistency with the restoration of the quantum appeal. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element of bogus purchases should be disallowed, not the entire purchase amount. It directed the Assessing Officer to accept the profit at the declared rate of 7%.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular was found to be binding on the revenue authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal deserved to be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular. The circular's revised monetary limits were applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it failed to specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal found the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the assessee's object clauses and provide three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the first and second provisos to Section 50C(1), inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, have retrospective effect. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that these provisions were intended to mitigate hardship and thus apply retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot make an addition on an issue that was not the subject matter of the assessment order or the grounds of appeal. The addition made by the CIT(A) was therefore deleted.
The tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following precedent, the tribunal found the penalty imposition to be invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the full gift claim. However, considering the gift was from his father, a lump sum addition of ₹1 lakh was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective and invalid because it did not clearly specify the charges under Section 271AAB. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was defective as it did not clearly specify the charges under Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed a part of the consumables, cloths, and apparels expenses, making lumpsum additions. The disallowance of interest expenses under sections 234B and 234C was deleted, following precedent that such interest is compensatory and not a penalty or tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice over technicalities. It also held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value, which is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the four-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year without recording any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material particulars. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in e-filing, citing the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice, especially when the hard copy was filed on time. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly state the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following precedent, the Tribunal found the penalty imposition invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following established precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the lower authorities. It was held that the donors were not covered under the exempt category of relatives as defined in Section 56(2)(VIII) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following established precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that non-commencement of charitable activities is not a prerequisite for granting Section 12AA registration, citing a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemption) were reversed.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeals and the revenue representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that non-commencement of charitable activities is not a prerequisite for granting Section 12AA registration, citing a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemption) were reversed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to make a mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) before adopting the stamp valuation rate. This omission renders the adoption of the fair market value invalid.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation that it lacked computer facilities in all rural branches. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation that it lacked computer facilities in all its rural branches. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings must follow the outcome of the quantum appeal. The Assessing Officer is to take a decision after adjudicating the quantum issue afresh.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated gross profit rate from 25% to 9% for the quantum appeal, stating it was not guided by comparable cases. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was an estimation, it did not automatically imply furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation that it lacked computer facilities in all its rural branches. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation that it lacked computer facilities in all its rural branches. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation that it lacked computer facilities in all its rural branches. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated gross profit rate from 25% to 9% for the quantum appeal, stating it was not guided by comparable cases. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was an estimation, it did not automatically imply furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeals and the revenue representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the land sale should be treated as business income. It remitted the issue of opening capital to the AO for fresh examination and also remitted the issue of cash deposits to the AO for adjudication based on bank statements.
The Tribunal held that expenses for installation of isolator breakers and lighting transformers were revenue in nature, as they were for running the business and producing profits. The assessee's appeal regarding donation was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that expenses for installation of isolator breakers and lighting transformers were revenue in nature, as they were for running the business and producing profits. The assessee's appeal regarding donation was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that Section 263 does not permit substituting one opinion for another and that the PCIT's revisionary powers cannot be used to initiate fresh inquiries on matters already concluded. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and the PCIT's order was based on a change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that the land sale should be treated as business income. It remitted the issue of opening capital to the AO for fresh examination and also remitted the issue of cash deposits to the AO for adjudication based on bank statements.
The Tribunal held that expenses for installation of isolator breakers and lighting transformers were revenue in nature, as they were for running the business and producing profits. The assessee's appeal regarding donation was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that expenses for installation of isolator breakers and lighting transformers were revenue in nature, as they were for running the business and producing profits. The assessee's appeal regarding donation was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that expenses for installation of isolator breakers and lighting transformers were revenue in nature, as they were for running the business and producing profits. The assessee's appeal regarding donation was dismissed as not pressed.