Loading High Court cases…
464 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the Assessing Officer had to abide by the directions of the Addl. Commissioner under Section 144A. The forfeited earnest money is not taxable as income but should be adjusted against the cost of the property when sold.
The High Court held that while the assessee had offered an explanation, neither the CIT(A) nor the ITAT had returned a clear and express finding on whether the explanation was satisfactory. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that Form-10 could be filed during reassessment proceedings, allowing the claim for those years. However, for the year where Form-10 was filed only before the Tribunal, the claim was rejected.
The Tribunal held that while an assessee cannot reopen assessment to file Form-10, if the revenue reopens assessment under Section 147, the assessee can furnish Form-10 during those proceedings. However, filing Form-10 only before the Tribunal was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Form-10 could be filed during reassessment proceedings, allowing the claim for those years. However, for the year where Form-10 was filed only before the Tribunal, the claim was rejected.
The Tribunal held that Form-10 could be filed during reassessment proceedings, allowing the claim for those years. However, for the year where Form-10 was filed only before the Tribunal, the claim was rejected.
The High Court held that the impugned orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should be set aside, except for the portion relating to the annual letting value for the assessment year 2003-04. The court found that the ITAT had not considered the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated December 21, 2002, from the crucial perspective of whether it was part of the record before the Assessing Officer. This aspect, along with the rest of the contentions of the parties, needed to be examined afresh by the Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matters back to the ITAT for a de novo consideration. The operative direction was for the parties to appear before the Tribunal on January 28, 2013, for further proceedings.
The Tribunal held that Form-10 could be filed during reassessment proceedings, allowing the claim for those years. However, for the year where Form-10 was filed only before the Tribunal, the claim was rejected.
The Tribunal held that Form-10 could be filed during reassessment proceedings, allowing the claim for those years. However, for the year where Form-10 was filed only before the Tribunal, the claim was rejected.
The Tribunal held that while an assessee cannot reopen assessment to file Form-10, if the revenue reopens assessment under Section 147, the assessee can furnish Form-10 during those proceedings. However, filing Form-10 only before the Tribunal was not permissible.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee could maintain separate investment and trading portfolios. Gains from the investment portfolio were correctly treated as capital gains, not business income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an intermediary between clients and transporters, not entering into a contract for carriage of goods. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy was a capital receipt. It also upheld the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, stating that the rejection of books of accounts was unjustified without pointing out defects.