Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without proper justification and without considering Rule 46A. The assessee's non-cooperation before the AO was also acknowledged. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for a remand report and examination of account holders.
The Tribunal noted that payments made to labour leaders/mates for a group of laborers are not subject to TDS under Section 194C if the individual employee's limit is not exceeded. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the payments to labour sardars were not liable for TDS.
The Tribunal noted that payments made to labour leaders/mates for a group of laborers are not subject to TDS under Section 194C if the individual employee's limit is not exceeded. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the payments to labour sardars were not liable for TDS.
The Tribunal noted that payments made to labour leaders/mates for a group of laborers are not subject to TDS under Section 194C if the individual employee's limit is not exceeded. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the payments to labour sardars were not liable for TDS.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the addition related to share application money was not supported by any incriminating material found during the search, and thus the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd. applied, quashing the addition. For AY 2019-20, the delay in payment of PF and ESIC was admitted, and the addition was upheld based on the decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause. The disallowance for cash payments was deleted as TDS provisions were not applicable for AY 2015-16. The motor cycle repair expenses were allowed as the vehicle was used for the benefit of the trust, even though it was owned by a trustee.
The Tribunal noted that the condonation of delay was granted by the CIT(E) after the assessment order was passed. The CIT(A) had upheld the assessment order based on the delayed filing without considering the condonation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5 months, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association.
The Tribunal held that for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, the share register (RKM-37) cannot be treated as incriminating material as it was a statutory document showing share application money received via banking channels and disclosed in the balance sheet. For A.Y. 2015-16, the deletion of cash addition by CIT(A) was upheld, but the issue of stock was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer has conducted a detailed inquiry and the issue was debatable at the time of assessment order, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT has a different opinion. Following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of SPPL Property Management (P) Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT.
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment under Section 143(3) was completed after specific scrutiny of share applicants, and no additions were made. The reasons for reopening did not mention any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO were hit by the first proviso to Section 147, thus quashing the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that returns filed under section 139(4) should be considered as filed within the time prescribed under section 139(1) or 139(2), following the decisions of the Bombay High Court and coordinate benches. The addition of Rs. 15,37,16,741/- was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate and condoned it. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee, being an NBFC, had significant share inventory and loan advances. The share sales were supported by documentation and received via cheque, negating the 'bogus' claim. The interest income was from stated loans and had TDS deducted, which was accepted by the AO. Therefore, the additions were deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide bills for the expenses to the Assessing Officer but did provide evidence to the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for examination of the bills.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the CIT(A) was justified in not adjudicating the issue on merits given the assessee's consistent failure to provide necessary details. Finding no error or reason for interference, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the disputed addition was below the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was considered not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the addition related to share application money was not supported by any incriminating material found during the search, and thus the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt Ltd. applied, quashing the addition. For AY 2019-20, the delay in payment of PF and ESIC was admitted, and the addition was upheld based on the decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the bank accounts, noting both debit and credit entries. It was held that the peak credit in the bank account is liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to add the peak credit.