Loading ITAT cases…
119 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 119 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for departmental appeals, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF cannot be claimed even if deposited before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a delayed return in response to the Section 148 notice. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a delayed return in response to the Section 148 notice. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing, stating that the grounds provided were not sufficient to warrant breaking the queue of pending appeals. The appeal was directed to be heard in its normal turn.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the transporters had declared the receipts as their turnover, and the assessee had obtained PAN copies and declaration letters. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions that non-furnishing of prescribed information does not automatically lead to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) if other conditions are met.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for early hearing. It found no sufficient cause or irreparable loss to justify fixing the appeals out of turn, directing them to be heard in due course.
The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal treated the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the Assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to estimate profit at 1%. It noted that the work was largely assigned to JV partners who declared lower profits, and the AO should have considered the past assessment year's profit rate of 0.37%.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities failed to appreciate the facts. The purchaser confirmed the transaction and demonstrated his creditworthiness, and there was no prohibition under the Income Tax Act for accepting sale consideration in cash at that time. The Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the DVO should have used local PWD rates for valuation instead of CPWD rates, as CPWD rates are generally higher. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding cash deposits as sale proceeds and correctly identified that the amounts in Form 26AS represented Tax Collected at Source (TCS) on purchases, not income. The estimated addition was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the PCIT were already examined and accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's observation that the AO had not verified the details was factually incorrect. The AO had examined the cash and bank books and concluded that the deposits were out of sufficient available cash. Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted a detailed examination of the facts and evidence provided by the assessee, taking a plausible view.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the sales and that the addition under Section 69A was incorrect as the amounts were recorded in the assessee's books.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the cash deposits were from the assessee's cash sales proceeds from the petrol pump business. The CIT(A) had considered all evidence and passed a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made requisite inquiries and applied his mind, distinguishing between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found to be bad in law.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the Assessing Officer made no additions. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation. It followed the Supreme Court's decision in Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, finding no error in the CIT(Appeals)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not want to press the appeal. Consequently, the Revenue had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO had wrongly made the addition for 80IA deduction as the assessee had suffered a loss and not claimed it. Regarding staff welfare expenses, the Tribunal found that lunch and dinner expenses were common and incidental for a large corporate and directed their deletion.
The Tribunal held that the AO had wrongly made the addition for 80IA deduction as the assessee had suffered a loss and not claimed it. Regarding staff welfare expenses, the Tribunal found that lunch and dinner expenses were common and incidental for a large corporate and directed their deletion.
The Tribunal held that the AO had wrongly made the addition for 80IA deduction as the assessee had suffered a loss and not claimed it. Regarding staff welfare expenses, the Tribunal found that lunch and dinner expenses were common and incidental for a large corporate and directed their deletion.
The Tribunal held that the AO had wrongly made the addition for 80IA deduction as the assessee had suffered a loss and not claimed it. Regarding staff welfare expenses, the Tribunal found that lunch and dinner expenses were common and incidental for a large corporate and directed their deletion.
The Tribunal held that despite the shares being identified as penny stock, the assessee had provided evidence of purchase and sale through banking channels. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the long-term capital gain to be genuine.
The Tribunal found the addition of the entire cash deposit as unexplained income to be unreasonable given the nature of the assessee's business as a government contractor with numerous labourers. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate income at 10% on these deposits.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable as the AO had conducted a detailed investigation and taken a plausible view. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that despite the shares being classified as penny stocks, the assessee had provided all necessary documentary evidence for the purchase and sale. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found that the transactions could not be deemed sham solely based on the broker's involvement.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unsecured loans. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and similar loans from the same lender were accepted in previous assessments.
The Tribunal noted that no assessment order had been framed pursuant to the revisionary direction. Accepting the assessee's contention regarding the expired limitation period, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that the timber used for mine support is a recurring expense essential for the profit-earning process and not for acquiring an asset of a permanent character.