Loading ITAT cases…
149 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be made. Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as application of income for charitable trusts, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. It also held that accumulation of income should be on gross receipts and excess application of income can be carried forward to subsequent years.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263, agreeing that the AO failed to make necessary inquiries regarding the nature of factoring charges. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Pr. CIT's specific observations on whether factoring charges constitute interest or the retrospective applicability of the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) should not influence the fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that while Section 54 is to be construed liberally, the purchase of two separate residential houses in different localities, which cannot be treated as one residential unit, disentitles the assessee from claiming deduction for both. The amendment by Finance Act, 2014 is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to adopt the fair market value of the property as on April 1, 1981, as the cost of acquisition for computing long-term capital gains. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee to support its claim of financial hardship. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that when material is found during a search in a third party's case, assessment should be made under Section 153C, not Section 148. The AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was therefore held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that when material is found during a search in a third party's case, assessment should be made under Section 153C, not Section 148. The AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was therefore held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to adopt the fair market value of the property as on April 1, 1981, as the cost of acquisition for computing long-term capital gains. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to adopt the fair market value of the property as on April 1, 1981, as the cost of acquisition for computing long-term capital gains. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that when material is found during a search in a third party's case, assessment should be made under Section 153C, not Section 148. The AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was therefore held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. It was noted that the investment in the partnership firm was made for business purposes and converted as per an arbitration award. Furthermore, the assessee had not used borrowed funds for such investments, and the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to contradict the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 and partly allowed the appeal for AY 2008-09. The issue of commission and locker rent received in advance was decided in favor of the assessee, following a previous co-ordinate bench ruling.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether the assessee falls under the category for which a higher perquisite value is applicable is covered by a previous decision. However, the authorities below did not examine the assessee's claim of a bona fide estimate for valuing the perquisite.
The Tribunal held that the 'on-site revenue filter' is a relevant factor for comparability, especially since the assessee earns 90% of its revenue from on-site services. It directed a fresh search for comparables applying this filter.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had proceeded on incorrect facts regarding the extent of delay and the filing of supporting documents. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 149 days, considering it to be a bona fide mistake by the tax consultant.
The Tribunal held that the valuation of unaccounted stock was correct as the valuer had already adjusted for impurity. For personal jewellery, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the benefit under CBDT Circular No. 1916.
The Tribunal held that Asian Business Exhibitions and Conferences Ltd. (ABEC) was not a comparable company for the assessee's advisory services and should be excluded. It also ruled that advances received from associated enterprises should be considered as trade payables for working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. It held that the absence of a completion certificate alone is not sufficient to deny the deduction, especially when other evidence of project completion exists.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid because they did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be computed before setting off brought forward business losses, following the Karnataka High Court decision in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. This decision was also approved by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, directing a fresh examination of all issues. This was based on a previous order for AY 2009-10 which mandated estimation based on comparable cases.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had passed a cryptic and stereotyped order without proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the DRP for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, had a contractual liability to pay interest on advances received for subleasing. This liability was not contingent but arose from the indemnity clause in the sublease agreement, making the disallowance by the lower authorities incorrect.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal held that since the assessee had already debited substantial investment expenses to the capital account, further disallowance under Section 14A was not justified. For AY 2008-09, as no such debits were made to the capital account, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that capital gains cannot be taxed in the impugned assessment year as possession of the land was not transferred to the builder before the sanction of the building plan. The JDA was also later cancelled.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not permitted to make variations in the book profits computed by the assessee under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beyond the adjustments specified in Explanation (1) to Section 115JB. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's accounts were certified by statutory auditors and not faulted by authorities under the Companies Act. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Hariram Hotels, which held that in such circumstances, the AO cannot question the accounting policies or the preparation of financial statements based on alleged non-compliance with accounting standards or the Companies Act. The Tribunal also observed that the object of Section 115JB is to tax book profits as shown to shareholders. Therefore, the AO's addition on account of depreciation was vacated, and the book profits as declared by the assessee were upheld. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous, as the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. However, as the revenue disputed the receipt of exempt income, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be allowed from 01.04.1981, as the property was acquired by the previous owner before that date. It also directed the AO to re-examine the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 based on the valuer's evidence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) needed reconsideration by the AO due to insufficient details regarding the source of funds for investments. However, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to exclude telecommunication expenses from both export and total turnover, citing High Court precedents. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of software expenditure being capital or revenue in nature for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which held that Section 11(6) of the IT Act is prospective. Therefore, the denial of depreciation was not upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The judgments cited by the assessee in the case of Wipro Ltd. were found to be not relevant to the present issue.
The Tribunal noted that the Rs. 10 lakhs was indeed part of the Rs. 3.04 crores surrendered by the firm and accounted for by the CIT(A) in the firm's assessment. Therefore, adding it again to the individual assessee's income was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the seized notebooks found in the assessee's possession created a presumption against the assessee. Since the assessee failed to prove the notebooks did not belong to them or that the entries were not related to suppressed sales, the addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal partially allowed the revenue's appeal by directing the inclusion of one comparable company. It dismissed the revenue's grounds challenging certain exclusions made by the CIT(A) and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction regarding Section 10A deduction.