Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was binding, and since the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in this regard was in favor of the Revenue, the assessee's case was not debatable. The cited case laws by the assessee were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that merely assuming purchases were bogus is not sufficient to establish the revenue's case, especially when the assessee provided details of purchases and sales. The Tribunal further found that the addition for commission expenses under Section 69C was purely presumptive and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee genuinely believed the sale of agricultural land was tax-neutral and that other co-owners in a similar situation did not face additions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he holds a different opinion from the AO, especially when the AO has made inquiries and adopted a possible legal view. The revisionary order was found to be bad in law as it disregarded settled judicial positions.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea to present additional evidence and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for proper verification and adjudication. The Tribunal noted that stock registers, supplier IT returns, and sales/purchase registers were not previously submitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided all necessary details of turnover, gross profit, net profit rates, and cash deposits from previous years, which were duly verified by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had rightly observed that the cash receipts of Rs. 4,29,05,391/-, out of which Rs. 3,57,34,500/- was deposited, were from customers.
The Tribunal noted that the notice issued under section 148 was beyond the surviving time limit by approximately 43 days. Consequently, the notice was held to be bad in law, rendering the assessment order void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the bank statements and cash books showed income from remuneration and interest, and provided details for cash deposits, including Rs. 7,50,000/- belonging to the Nilesh Natwarlal HUF. The AO was incorrect in making the addition to the individual assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's audited financials matched the objects in the trust deed and the PTR, and the objects were not discriminatory. The CIT(E) failed to demonstrate that expenditures were for specific communities only. Therefore, the rejection of the application was not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was carrying out activities as per audited financials, which matched the objects in the trust deed. Since the objects were for the general public and the CIT(E) could not point out any specific community-based expenditure, the rejection of the application was not justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee regularly deposited cash generated from its business of selling milk and dairy products. The cash deposits during demonetization were consistent with daily cash generation from the business and should have been considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the activities of the assessee, as per audited financials, matched the objects mentioned in the trust deed. The objects were not restricted to a particular community. The CIT(E) failed to demonstrate that expenditures were not for the general public. Therefore, the rejection of the application was not justifiable.