Loading ITAT cases…
115 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause and no mala fide intention. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated against both the BOI and AOP were without jurisdiction. This was primarily due to the AO's failure to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessees, as required by law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT had not considered the rectified trust deed submitted by the assessee before passing the rejection order. Therefore, the order of the CIT was unsustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, following consistent past rulings by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own cases. The deduction for interest on borrowings under Section 36(1)(iii) was allowed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the benefit of MAT credit for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 after due verification. This was based on earlier Tribunal decisions that held no Transfer Pricing adjustment was called for in those years.
The Tribunal held that the agreements were essentially for the purchase of residential sites from the developer, not for works contract. The mere fact that the developer undertook activities like laying roads before site delivery did not make it a works contract.
The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and inferring a lack of serious interest in pursuing the appeals, decided to dismiss the appeals. This decision was based on the principle that the law aids the vigilant.
The Tribunal held that for disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b), the AO must provide a basis, such as market rates, to demonstrate that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable. Since no such basis was provided, the disallowances were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the seized material was found during a search in another entity's premises, Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 147. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were bad in law for Assessment Year 2010-11. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed some grounds and deleted additions based on the seized material.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. For agricultural receipts, the AO was directed to examine evidence of cheque issuers. For unexplained investments, the AO was to re-examine the peak cash credit calculation considering joint bank accounts and other income/expenses.
The Tribunal held that for disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b), the AO must provide a basis, such as market rates, to demonstrate that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable. Since no such basis was provided, the disallowances were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the absence of a detailed working for the depreciation claim prevented a proper examination. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the assessee provides the complete depreciation working.
The Tribunal held that since the seized material was found during a search in another entity's premises, Section 153C should have been invoked instead of Section 147. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were bad in law for Assessment Year 2010-11. For Assessment Year 2011-12, the Tribunal allowed some grounds and deleted additions based on the seized material.
The Tribunal found that the absence of a detailed working for the depreciation claim prevented a proper examination. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the assessee provides the complete depreciation working.