Loading ITAT cases…
91 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of bogus purchases should be restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases, following the principle of consistency. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 591 days, finding the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of the order plausible and citing precedents that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The Tribunal then partly allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of agricultural expenses.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) correctly observed that a Section 154 rectification is for mistakes apparent from the record, the assessee's application can be treated as an additional claim. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions allowing additional claims before appellate authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause for the delay due to the assessee's bonafide pursuit of an alternative remedy. The Tribunal then proceeded to consider the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981 is applicable for determining the cost of acquisition, not just the previous owner's cost. The AO failed to consider Section 55(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the indexed cost of acquisition using a specified FMV per square meter.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the buyer of the showrooms in the 'Triton' project, and therefore, no profit on cancellation of the deal could be attributed to them. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's initial disallowance of 100% was too harsh, the CIT(A)'s reduction to 5% was also not appropriate. The Tribunal decided to sustain the addition at 6% of the bogus purchases, aligning with previous decisions on similar cases involving accommodation entry providers.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's initial disallowance of 100% was too harsh, the CIT(A)'s reduction to 5% was also not appropriate. The Tribunal decided to sustain the addition at 6% of the bogus purchases, aligning with previous decisions on similar cases involving accommodation entry providers.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly disallowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the assessee violated the condition of allotting not more than one unit to a person and their relatives. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding the assessment order being passed beyond the statutory time limit.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly disallowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the assessee violated the condition of allotting not more than one unit to a person and their relatives. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding the assessment order being passed beyond the statutory time limit.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, relying on a previous decision in the assessee's co-owner's case. It held that the transfer of asset took place in AY 2011-12, as evidenced by possession being given, land introduced as capital contribution, and development activities commencing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate that the Rs. 5,00,000 was part of his cheque discounting business or that it was not an investment. The earlier assessment order for the same year was unrelated to this specific investment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly disallowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the assessee violated the condition of allotting not more than one unit to a person and their relatives. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding the assessment order being passed beyond the statutory time limit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing the sale agreement and RC, and the cash deposits were made subsequent to the sale. The Tribunal found the AO's objections regarding the change in vehicle ownership and contact number to be unsubstantiated and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had established its eligibility for the Section 10B deduction. The Tribunal noted that similar deductions were allowed in preceding years without challenge and followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return due to a bonafide belief of having no taxable income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271F was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the medical reasons provided by the assessee. Subsequently, it was noted that the additions on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted in the quantum assessment appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte and non-speaking order, failing to adjudicate the grounds of appeal as required. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the medical reasons provided by the assessee. Subsequently, it was noted that the additions on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted in the quantum assessment appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the medical reasons provided by the assessee. Subsequently, it was noted that the additions on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted in the quantum assessment appeals.
The Tribunal held that since both the assessee and the associated enterprises were taxed at the maximum marginal rate, there was no diversion of funds to evade tax. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was not justified.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash receipts were duly recorded in the assessee's books and balance sheet, thus no addition was warranted. Similarly, the disallowance of interest expenses was deleted as the proportionate interest was allowable against interest income earned.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment but found the 25% disallowance excessive. Following precedent in similar cases, the disallowance was restricted to 6% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), considering the principle of natural justice and the direct relevancy of the evidence to the issues. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had regular business transactions with the lender, and the amount treated as unsecured loan was actually a realization of sales. The explanation provided by the assessee was considered reasonable and supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, noting that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the disallowance of the Section 54F claim were confirmed.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the Salabatpura property, for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground related to denial of deduction under Section 54/54F was dismissed, following consistency with prior decisions. For Jasmine Vilasbhai Bhajiyawala and Vilash Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground concerning denial of alternate relief under Section 54F on the sale of godowns was allowed for statistical purposes, following consistency. Similarly, the ground relating to the treatment of agricultural income and cash deposits as 'Income from other sources' was allowed for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), with similar directions as in a previously decided case. The ratio is to follow consistency with prior decisions and allow grounds for statistical purposes where applicable. Operative directions include allowing or dismissing grounds based on consistency and allowing certain grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) as it fulfilled the conditions. The provisions for bad and doubtful debts, including those for standard assets, are allowable deductions subject to the limits prescribed. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) based on the principle of consistency and previous rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the disputed purchases, acknowledging that while the assessee provided documentary evidence, the seller was involved in providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's plea for further relief.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the Salabatpura property, for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground related to denial of deduction under Section 54/54F was dismissed, following consistency with prior decisions. For Jasmine Vilasbhai Bhajiyawala and Vilash Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground concerning denial of alternate relief under Section 54F on the sale of godowns was allowed for statistical purposes, following consistency. Similarly, the ground relating to the treatment of agricultural income and cash deposits as 'Income from other sources' was allowed for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), with similar directions as in a previously decided case. The ratio is to follow consistency with prior decisions and allow grounds for statistical purposes where applicable. Operative directions include allowing or dismissing grounds based on consistency and allowing certain grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the Salabatpura property, for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground related to denial of deduction under Section 54/54F was dismissed, following consistency with prior decisions. For Jasmine Vilasbhai Bhajiyawala and Vilash Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground concerning denial of alternate relief under Section 54F on the sale of godowns was allowed for statistical purposes, following consistency. Similarly, the ground relating to the treatment of agricultural income and cash deposits as 'Income from other sources' was allowed for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), with similar directions as in a previously decided case. The ratio is to follow consistency with prior decisions and allow grounds for statistical purposes where applicable. Operative directions include allowing or dismissing grounds based on consistency and allowing certain grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the Salabatpura property, for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground related to denial of deduction under Section 54/54F was dismissed, following consistency with prior decisions. For Jasmine Vilasbhai Bhajiyawala and Vilash Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), the ground concerning denial of alternate relief under Section 54F on the sale of godowns was allowed for statistical purposes, following consistency. Similarly, the ground relating to the treatment of agricultural income and cash deposits as 'Income from other sources' was allowed for Varshaben Jigneshbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF) and Jigneshbhai Kishorbhai Bhajiyawala (HUF), with similar directions as in a previously decided case. The ratio is to follow consistency with prior decisions and allow grounds for statistical purposes where applicable. Operative directions include allowing or dismissing grounds based on consistency and allowing certain grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the incomplete nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the circumstances of the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion and lacked valid reasons, as similar grounds for reopening had been quashed by the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for other assessment years. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable.