Loading ITAT cases…
145 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the rental income derived from leasing out building properties, considering the assessee's organized commercial activities like providing security and maintenance, falls under 'Income from Business'. Consequently, the quantum addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the rental income derived from leasing out building properties, considering the assessee's organized commercial activities like providing security and maintenance, falls under 'Income from Business'. Consequently, the quantum addition and the penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries and considered the assessee's submissions regarding the written-off amounts. Therefore, the Pr.CIT was not justified in invoking revisional powers under Section 263.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the notice and penalty order did not clearly specify whether the allegation was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The quantum appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the revenue's quantum appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by following its own earlier order in the assessee's quantum appeal for the same year. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that Section 45(2) of the IT Act was not applicable. The shares of a private limited company cannot be considered stock-in-trade, and the AO failed to provide a valid basis for conversion from investment to stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to transfer pricing as withdrawn due to the APA. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal upheld the decision in favour of the assessee, following High Court and Supreme Court judgments on the treatment of export turnover and total turnover.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on revalued intangible assets upon conversion from a firm to a company is not allowable. It followed its own earlier decisions for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2008-09, and 2012-13, where similar claims were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the notice and penalty order did not clearly specify whether the allegation was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The quantum appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the revenue's quantum appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without proper service of notices and without deciding the case on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the notice and penalty order did not clearly specify whether the allegation was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The quantum appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the revenue's quantum appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reduction in the number of shares, even if the percentage of holding remained the same, amounts to extinguishment of rights and thus a 'transfer' under Section 2(47). The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court judgment in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the loss should have been reduced from capital and investment balances, not treated as unexplained expenditure. As the necessary details were not available, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the notice and penalty order did not clearly specify whether the allegation was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The quantum appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the revenue's quantum appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that depreciation is allowable at 50% for assets acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the financial year.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal, applying the principle that the law aids the vigilant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the loss of gold, holding that a small percentage of loss should be allowed. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the exclusion of SEZ income from book profit for MAT purposes, stating that no stay was granted by the High Court.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the loss of gold, holding that a small percentage of loss should be allowed. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the exclusion of SEZ income from book profit for MAT purposes, stating that no stay was granted by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving agricultural income with specific evidence. The disallowance of deductions under Section 57 was not pressed by the assessee. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was upheld as consequential.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries in the original assessment, and the CIT erred in invoking section 263 for issues already examined. However, the issue regarding the purchase from Basma Jewellers, which was not properly examined by the AO or CIT(A), was remanded for adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the loss of gold, holding that a small percentage of loss should be allowed. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the exclusion of SEZ income from book profit for MAT purposes, stating that no stay was granted by the High Court.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with all relied-upon documents and allow for cross-examination of persons whose statements were being used.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with all relied-upon documents and allow for cross-examination of persons whose statements were being used.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The CBDT circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant year. It followed the decisions of the Delhi and Madras High Courts.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on revalued fixed assets should be allowed as a deduction for computing book profits under Section 115JB, following a High Court decision. The issue regarding the extent of deduction for eligible profits under Section 80HHC was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the loss of gold, holding that a small percentage of loss should be allowed. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the exclusion of SEZ income from book profit for MAT purposes, stating that no stay was granted by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.36,49,863 was unsustainable as it appeared to include the opening balance of unsecured loans. The enhancements made by the CIT(Appeals) were deleted for failure to provide the remand report and issue a notice of enhancement.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the loss of gold, holding that a small percentage of loss should be allowed. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the exclusion of SEZ income from book profit for MAT purposes, stating that no stay was granted by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries in the original assessment, and the CIT erred in invoking section 263 for issues already examined. However, the issue regarding the purchase from Basma Jewellers, which was not properly examined by the AO or CIT(A), was remanded for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries in the original assessment, and the CIT erred in invoking section 263 for issues already examined. However, the issue regarding the purchase from Basma Jewellers, which was not properly examined by the AO or CIT(A), was remanded for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The CBDT circular regarding monetary limits applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the loss of gold, holding that a small percentage of loss should be allowed. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the exclusion of SEZ income from book profit for MAT purposes, stating that no stay was granted by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without independently considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries in the original assessment, and the CIT erred in invoking section 263 for issues already examined. However, the issue regarding the purchase from Basma Jewellers, which was not properly examined by the AO or CIT(A), was remanded for adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding the loss of gold, holding that a small percentage of loss should be allowed. However, it dismissed the assessee's claim regarding the exclusion of SEZ income from book profit for MAT purposes, stating that no stay was granted by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving agricultural income with specific evidence. The disallowance of deductions under Section 57 was not pressed by the assessee. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was upheld as consequential.
The Tribunal held that the additions on account of unexplained FDRs could not be made in the hands of the larger HUF due to partition, nor in the hands of the individual, but should be apportioned among smaller HUFs. Credit for agricultural and business income should be given.
The Tribunal held that the additions on account of unexplained FDRs could not be made in the hands of the larger HUF due to partition, nor in the hands of the individual, but should be apportioned among smaller HUFs. Credit for agricultural and business income should be given.
The Tribunal held that the additions on account of unexplained FDRs could not be made in the hands of the larger HUF due to partition, nor in the hands of the individual, but should be apportioned among smaller HUFs. Credit for agricultural and business income should be given.