Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that while the assessee declared income under Section 44AD, the lower authorities did not adequately consider the explanation of cash sales. To prevent revenue leakage and meet the ends of justice, the addition was restricted to 10% of the total cash deposit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that substantial rights of the assessee were involved and the additions were made ex-parte due to lack of proper representation, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., held that cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on gross interest receipts from cooperative banks. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice. It found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte without a proper hearing and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not sharing the remand report with the assessee and not seeking their rejoinder. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the unsecured loan as income under Section 68 was not justified because the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including RTGS transfer details and financial documents of the lender, to establish the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition at the rate of 6% of bogus purchases, following a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the low gross profit rate of the assessee and the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10B along with the return of income is a procedural lapse, not a bar to substantial justice. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the delay in filing the audit report should be condoned if filed during assessment or appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that some creditors were paid within the assessment year or in subsequent years, and the department accepted these repayments. Therefore, the genuineness of the creditors should not be doubted. However, since the full repayment details were not verified by lower authorities, the issue was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to plead his case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest earned from a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal precedents, thus quashing the PCIT's revisionary order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist with income solely from agricultural activities and milk sales, had provided sufficient evidence like Form 7A/7 and other details of agricultural activities. The Assessing Officer had failed to refute or discredit these evidences, thus the addition made was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 3,15,047/- after considering the basic exemption limit and the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the department to show inherent weakness or rebut the explanation provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the pandemic and the assessee's medical condition. The addition on account of cash deposited in the bank was restricted to 5% of the cash deposit, while additions made through cheques were deleted. The appeal for AY 2010-11 was allowed, and the appeal for AY 2011-12 was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the pandemic and the assessee's medical condition. The addition on account of cash deposited in the bank was restricted to 5% of the cash deposit, while additions made through cheques were deleted. The appeal for AY 2010-11 was allowed, and the appeal for AY 2011-12 was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and applied his mind to the issue of TDS compliance on freight expenses. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned a 6-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. On merits, the Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not fully justified and directed that the addition be restricted to the peak balance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee showed losses in the current year while showing profits in previous and subsequent years, without providing any reason. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment to examine the necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee showed losses in the current year while showing profits in previous and subsequent years, without providing any reason. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment to examine the necessary documents.
The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to lack of substantiation for expenses. However, it remanded the issue of profit estimation back to the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee had already declared 3% profit and, if so, to estimate the addition at 5% to achieve a total of 8% as per Section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the delay was not condoned as the explanation provided, including the illness of the father and alleged mistake of the CA/Advocate, did not constitute sufficient cause. Negligence on the part of an agent entrusted with filing an appeal cannot be a sufficient reason.