Loading ITAT cases…
45 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, the entire unaccounted turnover cannot be taxed; only a reasonable estimation of net profit on the unaccounted turnover is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee with an opportunity to rectify mistakes and present their case, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, the entire unaccounted turnover cannot be taxed; only a reasonable estimation of net profit on the unaccounted turnover is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or fell under exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement was intertwined with the issue of cash receipts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee received cash totaling Rs. 2,32,04,500/- for the sale of immovable properties from seven buyers. It referred to Section 269SS of the Act, which prohibits accepting any sum of money, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to the transfer of an immovable property, otherwise than by an account payee cheque, bank draft, or ECS, if the amount is Rs. 20,000/- or more. The objective of the amendment was to curb black money. However, the Tribunal found that the cash received by the assessee was recorded in the sale deeds and deposited into the bank account, meaning there was no suppression of cash receipts. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS were not attracted, and the order of the CIT(A) deserved to be quashed. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO had not recorded satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), which was a prerequisite. Citing the ratio in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (SC), the Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were initiated without proper satisfaction. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, the entire unaccounted turnover cannot be taxed; only a reasonable estimation of net profit on the unaccounted turnover is permissible.
The Tribunal held that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, the entire unaccounted turnover cannot be taxed; only a reasonable estimation of net profit on the unaccounted turnover is permissible.
The Tribunal held that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, the entire unaccounted turnover cannot be taxed; only a reasonable estimation of net profit on the unaccounted turnover is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement was intertwined with the issue of cash receipts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee received cash totaling Rs. 2,32,04,500/- for the sale of immovable properties from seven buyers. It referred to Section 269SS of the Act, which prohibits accepting any sum of money, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to the transfer of an immovable property, otherwise than by an account payee cheque, bank draft, or ECS, if the amount is Rs. 20,000/- or more. The objective of the amendment was to curb black money. However, the Tribunal found that the cash received by the assessee was recorded in the sale deeds and deposited into the bank account, meaning there was no suppression of cash receipts. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS were not attracted, and the order of the CIT(A) deserved to be quashed. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO had not recorded satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), which was a prerequisite. Citing the ratio in CIT Vs Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (SC), the Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were initiated without proper satisfaction. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, as evidenced by the certificate issued by the Principal Commissioner. The appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee with an opportunity to rectify mistakes and present their case, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that tax is levied on income, not gross receipts. Therefore, the entire unaccounted turnover cannot be taxed; only a reasonable estimation of net profit on the unaccounted turnover is permissible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce vouchers for land levelling expenditure and that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal after considering additional evidence regarding the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the DR as the assessee did not appear.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on project berths, finding that the ownership of the berths remained with the assessee during the license period. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of interest on work-in-progress and provisions for doubtful debts.
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the appeals were not maintainable as the assessee failed to rectify defects pointed out by the registry despite being served notice. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities as the assessee failed to provide any material evidence to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order lacked any finding or discussion on the share premium received by the assessee. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order invoking Section 263 to revise the assessment was justified.
The Tribunal held that filing a return of income claiming the deduction is imperative as per Section 80A(5). Since the assessee failed to file the return within the due date and the belated return was filed after the completion of assessment, the claim for deduction is not admissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions, paper book, and additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, if employee's contribution to PF & ESI is remitted within the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities is not justified.
The Tribunal held that contributions received for a specific purpose, like corpus for building construction or plantation expenses, cannot be treated as income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act, even without 12A registration. It also allowed depreciation claimed on assets not previously claimed as deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify crucial aspects like interest payments, renovation charges, brokerage, and the creditworthiness of gift donors. Therefore, the assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on project berths, finding that the ownership of the berths remained with the assessee during the license period. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of interest on work-in-progress and provisions for doubtful debts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions, paper book, and additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions, paper book, and additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions, paper book, and additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions, paper book, and additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not considered the written submissions, paper book, and additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the appeals were not maintainable as the assessee failed to rectify defects pointed out by the registry despite being served notice. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee's activities, primarily running an electric stabilizer assembly unit, were business in nature and not charitable. Therefore, exemption under Section 11 was denied.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was revenue in nature as it was for preserving and maintaining the existing asset, not for creating a new one or enhancing capacity. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the appeal of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any material evidence to substantiate the cash credits before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on project berths, finding that the ownership of the berths remained with the assessee during the license period. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of interest on work-in-progress and provisions for doubtful debts.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on project berths, finding that the ownership of the berths remained with the assessee during the license period. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of interest on work-in-progress and provisions for doubtful debts.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on project berths, finding that the ownership of the berths remained with the assessee during the license period. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of interest on work-in-progress and provisions for doubtful debts.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr.CIT's order, finding no infirmity in the revision. The assessee's inconsistent explanations regarding the source of cash deposits led to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the share premium was received through proper banking channels and the investor companies had sufficient funds. The AO erred in treating these investments as unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the AO is mandatorily required to record satisfaction before issuing a notice under section 153C, even if the AO for the searched person and the other person is the same. Since no satisfaction note was found, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain proper books of accounts and could not prove ownership of assets for depreciation, the AO was justified in estimating profit. However, the estimation of 15% was considered high.
The Tribunal held that since the ITAT had restored the assessee's registration under Section 12A, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to delete the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 154 was invalid. It found that the CIT(A)'s original order, which allowed for a 15% gross profit estimation, was correct based on similar facts and a prior ITAT ruling.
The Tribunal held that the AO is mandatorily required to record satisfaction before issuing a notice under section 153C, even if the AO for the searched person and the other person is the same. Since no satisfaction note was found, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO is mandatorily required to record satisfaction before issuing a notice under section 153C, even if the AO for the searched person and the other person is the same. Since no satisfaction note was found, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO is mandatorily required to record satisfaction before issuing a notice under section 153C, even if the AO for the searched person and the other person is the same. Since no satisfaction note was found, the assessment order was set aside.