Loading ITAT cases…
82 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the documents seized from a third party, not in the assessee's handwriting, and not identified by the third party as relating to the assessee, are 'dumb documents'. Therefore, additions based on these documents are not sustainable.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to contest their stand promptly.
The Tribunal held that the issue relating to employer's contribution to ESI and PF, deposited belatedly, should be verified by the AO. The AO was directed to allow appropriate relief based on the Supreme Court's decision in Check Mate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans and that the disallowances on general, travelling, vehicle, and telephone expenses were either deleted or restricted based on previous years' assessments and the assessee's turnover.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's return filed after the assessment order was invalid. However, considering the assessee's ill health and the fact that TDS was deducted on receipts, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment by taxing 8% of the professional receipts and allowing TDS and Chapter VI-A deductions.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of stores and spares expenditure, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and grant TDS credit and to recompute interest under sections 234C and 234D.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to contest their stand promptly.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 55A, which allowed for references to the DVO, was not retrospective and thus not applicable to transactions prior to July 1, 2012. Consequently, the reference made by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the addition of 25% of the total turnover was made on an estimated basis without cogent evidence. For AY 2016-17, the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) regarding cash deposits was upheld as the assessee had disclosed income and profit exceeding the threshold under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the cause of substantial justice. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits and consider the additional evidence, noting that the same income was taxed in the hands of the assessee's husband.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including details of a joint bank account and land holdings. It found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper reasoning and directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue after considering the new evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the addition of 25% of the total turnover was made on an estimated basis without cogent evidence. For AY 2016-17, the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) regarding cash deposits was upheld as the assessee had disclosed income and profit exceeding the threshold under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the addition of 25% of the total turnover was made on an estimated basis without cogent evidence. For AY 2016-17, the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) regarding cash deposits was upheld as the assessee had disclosed income and profit exceeding the threshold under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. For unsecured loans, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions. For purchases, the assessee had furnished complete details, and the transactions were supported by documentary evidence and banking channels.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence that the firm was dissolved and the transactions were accounted for by the proprietary concern. The Tribunal noted that the bank had rectified its mistake in reflecting the transactions under the wrong PAN.
The Tribunal held that the AO had examined both issues regarding deductions under Section 54B and 54F. The Tribunal found that the AO's view on these deductions was not erroneous, considering relevant judicial precedents. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries regarding the cash deposits and the increase in gross profit. The PCIT's order was found to be without jurisdiction as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in taxing notional rent for the entire year as the assessee had only received rent for 18 days and had offered it for taxation. The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to provide evidence of the property being let out for the remaining period.
The Tribunal noted that the details of expenses submitted before it were not explained to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for examination of the ledger accounts and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of shareholders and proving the source of the source. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that emphasize the AO's duty to verify with the lenders' AO before shifting the burden back to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry and taken a plausible view, and the PCIT failed to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the department had accepted capital gains in the hands of a co-owner for a similar transaction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and examined the evidence presented by the assessee, and his satisfaction, based on the documents, was not shown to be erroneous. The PCIT's attempt to substitute his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer was not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10B along with the return was a procedural lapse, and the assessee should not be denied the benefit of application of income. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the facts and allow relief.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer reopened the case based on material already on record, constituting a change of opinion, and not on any new information or failure by the assessee to disclose facts. Therefore, the reopening was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in revising the assessment order. The Assessing Officer had examined the issue of sale consideration and stamp duty payment during the original assessment and accepted the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal was filed contrary to the prescribed monetary limits. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the tax effect was below the threshold.
The Tribunal held that for sub-contractors who filed their returns and paid taxes, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be deleted. For those who did not file returns, the disallowance was restricted to 30% of the payment. For other expenses, the CIT(A)'s restriction to 10% was affirmed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. The assessee's application for condonation of delay was not supported by an affidavit and lacked a plausible explanation.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that only the profit element embedded in disputed purchases should be taxed, not the entire transaction. The sales made by the assessee out of these purchases were not disputed.