Loading ITAT cases…
119 orders · Page 2 of 3
The assessee stated that they no longer wished to press the grounds of appeal and intended to withdraw the same. The Revenue had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on fixed deposits was not derived from the assessee's business activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(8A). The assessee failed to demonstrate the business purpose or integral nature of the term deposit to its core business.
The Tribunal held that Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act does not stipulate that returns must be filed for earlier years to claim unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order allowing the claim was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's retraction of the offered income was made after a significant delay and was not valid. The AO had rightly made additions for unexplained investment as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the source of expenditure.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for alteration and construction of a third floor on the newly purchased property are eligible for deduction under Section 54F, as these are necessary to make the property usable. The AO's interpretation was considered against the beneficial purpose of the section.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the disputes had been resolved at a higher level. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It held that the revenue expenditure was correctly allowed as application under Section 11, and depreciation was allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, following jurisdictional High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B is to be considered on a standalone basis for the eligible undertaking, independent of other units. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision allowing depreciation to trusts is binding, even if an SLP is admitted by the Supreme Court without a stay. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that depreciation is allowable for trusts. The fact that the Supreme Court admitted an SLP did not override the binding High Court judgment.
The tribunal held that if the deductee has already offered the interest income to tax and paid the taxes, the deductor cannot be deemed an assessee in default under Section 201(1). Consequently, the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from its surplus funds deposited in banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities and is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271 was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is a necessary outgoing and should be allowed in computing the income of a charitable trust. This is supported by various High Court decisions, including the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders, noting the assessee's lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeals and the absence of convincing reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 87,10,800/- for the unexplained gold jewellery of 4.148 kg was justified. However, the addition of the entire seized amount of Rs. 1,96,42,564/- was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 87,10,800/- for the unexplained gold jewellery of 4.148 kg was justified. However, the addition of the entire seized amount of Rs. 1,96,42,564/- was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 87,10,800/- for the unexplained gold jewellery of 4.148 kg was justified. However, the addition of the entire seized amount of Rs. 1,96,42,564/- was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 87,10,800/- for the unexplained gold jewellery of 4.148 kg was justified. However, the addition of the entire seized amount of Rs. 1,96,42,564/- was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot raise a new claim under Section 54 in a revised return filed in response to a Section 148 notice, as Section 147 is for the benefit of the Revenue. Furthermore, there was no evidence to establish that the residential house was acquired out of the sale proceeds.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of bad debts, when accompanied by a reduction in debtors on the balance sheet, constitutes actual write-off. It also held that the absence of entries in the books of account does not affect the allowability of an expenditure if the liability has crystallized and is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of bad debts, when accompanied by a reduction in debtors on the balance sheet, constitutes actual write-off. It also held that the absence of entries in the books of account does not affect the allowability of an expenditure if the liability has crystallized and is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A, as the assessee had provided sufficient details and the trust was formed recently. The rejection of the 80G approval was consequential to the 12A rejection.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of bad debts, when accompanied by a reduction in debtors on the balance sheet, constitutes actual write-off. It also held that the absence of entries in the books of account does not affect the allowability of an expenditure if the liability has crystallized and is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's reallocation of direct and indirect costs based on turnover was not justified and set aside the issue for proper verification. The Tribunal also ruled that foreign exchange fluctuation gains/losses on receivables from AEs are to be treated as operating revenue/cost.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of bad debts, when accompanied by a reduction in debtors on the balance sheet, constitutes actual write-off. It also held that the absence of entries in the books of account does not affect the allowability of an expenditure if the liability has crystallized and is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of bad debts, when accompanied by a reduction in debtors on the balance sheet, constitutes actual write-off. It also held that the absence of entries in the books of account does not affect the allowability of an expenditure if the liability has crystallized and is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of any exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was set aside.