Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that forfeited penalty expenditure, if not resulting in enduring benefit, is a business loss and allowable. Depreciation on machinery used for business purposes is also allowable. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow relief on contract receipts after considering additional evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV scheme benefits.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity as it was in accordance with the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. The disallowance was confirmed, with a direction for the AO to verify payments within the grace period.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to conduct necessary verification before rejecting the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding agricultural land ownership and income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had partially admitted additional evidence and could not reject other evidence piecemeal.
The Tribunal found that the revenue had not adequately verified the genuineness of the transactions for the opening cash balance and the interest paid. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that a valid declaration made under the Black Money Act, 2015, which included payment of tax and penalty, is not liable for further penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities failed to consider this aspect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request and the Revenue's no objection. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme was approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been approved. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if any issue remained unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessees' request and the Revenue's no objection. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a list of donors and receipts for corpus donations. The authorities below failed to conduct necessary inquiries to verify the genuineness of these donations. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefits of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that running a hostel is akin to running an educational institution and falls within the definition of 'charitable purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to resolve the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn under the scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following previous ITAT rulings. The adjustments on royalty and sales were deleted as they were not arm's length, and the disallowance of export commission was also deleted as tax deduction was not required.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and did not wish to pursue the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme provisions permit such withdrawal. The assessee can file a miscellaneous application if any issue remains unresolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme provisions permit such withdrawal. The assessee can file a miscellaneous application if any issue remains unresolved under the scheme.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as per the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that running a hostel is akin to running an educational institution and falls within the definition of 'charitable purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme benefits could not be availed for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and application for withdrawal, noting that the application was approved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request in accordance with the scheme's provisions.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the Income Tax Returns and Form 26AS of the commission recipients. If found correct, the commission expenses will be allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessees to withdraw their cases due to opting for the VSV Scheme. However, the assessees were granted liberty to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered the income by filing a revised computation before detection by the revenue, indicating no dishonest intent. Following a co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts, the penalty was deleted.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeals filed before the tribunal. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the tribunal accepted the assessee's request and dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had purchased a single combined residential flat, demonstrated by a single sale agreement and allotment letter for a tailor-made combined flat with a single entry and exit. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the physical structure of multiple units does not preclude it from being considered a single residential house for exemption purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to seek restoration of their appeals if they failed to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting that their applications under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been approved. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the commission income was not chargeable to tax in India, the obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 did not arise. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the AO's order as the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were limited to one specific transaction. Furthermore, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 when the original assessment order had already been quashed. Since the foundation of the revision proceedings was invalid, the PCIT's order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind before allowing the exemption under Section 54. Therefore, the PCIT's order deeming the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the peak credit theory and found that the income declared by the assessee was higher than the proposed addition. Therefore, the AO's decision to accept the declared income was a possible view and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the liberal interpretation of limitation provisions. It held that additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during search, and since no such material was found for the assessment year in question, the additions were unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty was also cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was a genuine transaction and not a colorable device to transfer immovable property. It also found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to make interest-free loans and advances, and the project completion was within the prescribed time limit.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty levied solely on the basis of disallowing the claim was not appropriate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider the addition only to the extent of gross profit on suppressed sales, applying a reasonable GP rate. The Tribunal found the GP rate of 12.5% determined by the CIT(A) to be reasonable based on past averages.
The Tribunal held that the stamp duty value applicable at the time of the agreement to sell should be considered, not the revised value effective later. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had accepted a lower stamp duty valuation for a co-owner of the same property.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient justification for admitting additional evidence for travelling expenses and did not prove the business necessity of foreign travel. For TDS-related disallowances, the Tribunal allowed the issue to be restored to the AO for verification, provided the assessee submits a CA certificate.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for converting debentures into equity share capital, which results in an enduring benefit to the company by increasing its capital base, is capital in nature. The alternative claim for deduction under Section 35D was also rejected as it does not apply to such expenditure incurred after the commencement of business.
The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.