Loading ITAT cases…
102 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that no income accrued to the assessee on account of the OFCPNs because no sale had taken place and there was no guaranteed income even after five years if the assessee opted for conversion into shares at par. The nature of OFCPN was not that of a fixed deposit or debenture with guaranteed extra income.
The Tribunal held that no income accrued to the assessee on account of the OFCPNs because no sale had taken place and there was no guaranteed income even after five years if the assessee opted for conversion into shares at par. The nature of OFCPN was not that of a fixed deposit or debenture with guaranteed extra income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that interest income from nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. However, following a High Court judgment, the assessee is entitled to a deduction for proportionate expenditure incurred in earning such income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient control and bore the risk of the project, and that the commercial construction was not undertaken by the assessee. Therefore, the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the gains from share transactions should be treated as capital gains and not business income. The Tribunal followed its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal deleted the impugned penalty. Since the primary addition was deleted, the penalty levied on that addition was also deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that if an investment company primarily exists to earn tax-exempt income, the expenses incurred for its corporate existence are indeed related to earning that exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance is justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision. The issue was found to be covered by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of State Bank of India vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a survey admission without corroborating evidence. The actual investment in FDs and the income element on sale of gold ornaments should be considered after examining the assessee's details.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000.
The Tribunal held that if a company is formed primarily to earn tax-exempt income, the expenses incurred for its existence are indeed related to earning that exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and pursue the case despite proper notice. The Tribunal cited several High Court and ITAT decisions supporting dismissal for lack of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that if an investment company primarily exists to earn tax-exempt income, the expenses incurred for its corporate existence are indeed related to earning that exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance is justified.
The Tribunal held that if an investment company primarily exists to earn tax-exempt income, the expenses incurred for its existence are indeed related to earning that exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now covered by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Therefore, the assessee's grievance lacks legal merit.
The Tribunal held that if an investment company primarily exists to earn tax-exempt income, the expenses incurred for its corporate existence are indeed related to earning that exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance is justified.
The Tribunal found the condonation petition to be vague and lacking in specific details or evidence to explain the inordinate delay. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the petition.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that interest on NPA for a cooperative bank should be recognized on a receipt basis as per RBI guidelines. The addition of accrued NPA interest to the total income was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding the cash deposits and directed a de novo examination by the AO. Similarly, for the Section 50C addition, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for de novo examination of the fair market value.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following precedents that held open terraces are not part of the built-up area for the purpose of Section 80IB(10) and that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for being a developer. The department's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following precedents that held open terraces are not part of the built-up area for the purpose of Section 80IB(10) and that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for being a developer. The department's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty on certain additions, finding that the assessee's explanation was bonafide and that the revised return was filed before the completion of inquiries. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty on certain additions, finding that the assessee's explanation was bonafide and that the revised return was filed before the completion of inquiries. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. Citing various High Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for verification of the new document submitted by the assessee. The AO was directed to pass an order after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.