Loading ITAT cases…
95 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all relevant proofs, including loan details through banking channels. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the ownership of the property was acquired on the date of the share certificate allotment, making the capital gain long-term and eligible for exemption. However, the deduction for housing loan interest was disallowed as the property was sold within five years.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures without tangible material. Following the decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding year, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that for invoking Section 41(1), there must be a benefit received by the assessee due to cessation or remission of liability, and the amount must have been allowed as a deduction previously. Since the assessee made payments in subsequent years and did not write back the liability, Section 41(1) was not applicable.
The Tribunal, satisfied with the reasons provided, set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of ₹2,500 per appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not given credit for opening work-in-progress when calculating the closing stock of WIP, which is a well-settled legal principle.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was because the assessment order, which was the basis for the addition, had been made under Section 263, and that Section 263 order itself had been quashed by a coordinate bench of the ITAT.
The Tribunal found no material to rebut the findings of the CIT(A) and therefore dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The ITAT noted that the disallowance of the section 10A deduction was subsequently cancelled by the Tribunal itself in a prior appeal. Therefore, the basis for the penalty no longer existed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to the delay and the assessee's failure to take necessary steps. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee and violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty levied had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the commission income already disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 27.50 lakhs should be set off against the estimated commission income. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 18,20,407/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the commission income already disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 27.50 lakhs should be set off against the estimated commission income. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 18,20,407/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while a statement recorded during a survey is not conclusive evidence, the assessee's partial admission of income strengthens the Revenue's case. However, it was also held that 'on-money' received on booking would partake the character of business receipts, and the profit element embedded therein is taxable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 5000/-. It also set aside the CIT(A)'s order to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of evidence consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim of a business commitment for selling goods at a loss. The consistent pattern of loss-making sales to a single party, while making profits with others, indicated under-invoicing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the hospitalization of the key personnel and the potential cascading effect on subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal also held that the income derived from the multiplex operations should be assessed under the head 'business income', not 'income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the bad debt deduction as the third party's agreement to pay was moral, not legal, and the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order confirming payment was not known at the time of claiming the debt. For land leveling expenses, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not verify the genuineness of the bills and remanded the matter for de novo consideration, disallowing expenses incurred after property transfer and from a prior period.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 28,03,000/-. The assessee did not press the issue of reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be deprived of a lawful claim due to ignorance or lack of knowledge, especially when supporting documents were available. The ITAT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's omission to include certain income was due to a bona fide mistake by the tax consultant, not a deliberate concealment. The assessee immediately filed a revised return and paid taxes, demonstrating a cooperative approach.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot reduce the value adopted by the assessee based on a registered valuer's report without proper justification, especially for transactions prior to 1.7.2012. The AO was directed to recompute the capital gain using the value of Rs. 90/- per sq. meter as the cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot reduce the value adopted by the assessee based on a registered valuer's report without proper justification, especially for transactions prior to 1.7.2012. The AO was directed to recompute the capital gain using the value of Rs. 90/- per sq. meter as the cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were vague and lacked quantification of escaped income, which is crucial for issuing a notice under Section 148 after four years. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made a suo moto disclosure of income prior to detection by the tax authorities, as no incriminating documents were found during the search related to the assessee, and no specific queries were raised by the AO about the admitted income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be attracted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from scheduled banks, not being cooperative societies, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d). However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate expenditure incurred in earning such interest income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening under Section 147 was based on prima facie material and was justified. However, the issue of unexplained investment under Section 69 needed to be examined afresh, especially considering the status of substantive assessment in other companies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to plausible reasons. The Tribunal set aside both the impugned orders and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained relief from the CIT(A) and that the PCIT's order was effectively rendered moot. Therefore, the appeal against the PCIT's order was not required to be adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from scheduled banks, not being cooperative societies, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d). However, it directed the AO to allow proportionate expenditure incurred in earning such interest income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record a conclusive finding on whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Given the assessee voluntarily disclosed some errors before reassessment and the ad-hoc nature of some disallowances, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be partly deleted, following a previous order for the assessment year 2012-13. The disallowance for late payment of employee PF/ESI contributions was confirmed, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the deposits through the Will, which was attested by two witnesses who supported her version. The non-registration of the Will did not invalidate it or its evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the deposits through the Will, which was attested by two witnesses who supported her version. The non-registration of the Will did not invalidate it or its evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that interest income from scheduled banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The AO was directed to re-quantify the disallowance based on net interest income from scheduled banks.
The Tribunal held that interest income from scheduled banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The AO was directed to re-quantify the disallowance based on net interest income from scheduled banks.
The Tribunal held that interest income from scheduled banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), but interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The AO was directed to re-quantify the disallowance based on net interest income from scheduled banks.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasoning for disallowance was flawed, as it is impossible for the assessee to prove non-sharing of resources. The AO failed to provide evidence of expenses being used for non-business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the full exemption under Section 54F as the property was purchased within the stipulated period, and the deposit in the capital gains account before the due date is not a mandatory condition if the investment is made within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee's explanation that the advances were for joint tender applications, not loans, was not found to be false by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable.