Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the facts for AY 2015-16 were identical to AY 2014-15. Therefore, the assessee should be eligible for the benefits of registration u/s 12A, and the income should be assessed afresh u/s 11.
The Tribunal held that while disallowance is warranted due to defective vouchers, the CIT(A)'s sustained disallowance was excessive. The disallowance was restricted to 7.5% of the claimed labour charges.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was to examine the facts in light of the Supreme Court's decision in The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Co-operative Society Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the issue of reassessment notice under Section 148 and the validity of reassessment proceedings were significant legal grounds. Since these grounds were admitted in a prior appeal and not fully adjudicated, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for attending seminars abroad by lecturers are eligible for exemption as they contribute to the growth and development of students and are for charitable purposes in India. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's cross-objections were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F for multiple residential units received under a JDA, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The amendment to Section 54F regarding 'one' residential house was not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly refused to admit additional evidence, as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it before the AO. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 was defective, failing to specify whether the charge was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals. It held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and restored both matters to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was to examine the facts in light of the Supreme Court's decision in The Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Co-operative Society Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to use the stamp duty value on the date of the registered sale deed. This was because the sale agreement was not registered and the partial consideration was received in cash, failing to establish its genuineness as per Section 50C.
The Tribunal noted that the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. still holds good regarding interest income from temporary parking of surplus funds. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with all relied-upon documents and allow cross-examination of deponents whose statements formed the basis of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the validity of reassessment proceedings was upheld. Regarding the disallowance, the Tribunal found that the factual aspect of the provision reversal and its prior disallowance needed examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had made submissions before the TPO, but they might not have reached the TPO due to a clerical error in addressing the letter. Therefore, the matter was restored to the TPO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Departmental Representative also admitted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that under the 'block of assets' concept, depreciation is allowable on the entire block if at least one asset within the block is used for business purposes. The disallowance of depreciation on some assets within a block, while allowing it on others, was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which was in favor of the assessee regarding the retrospective applicability of the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 40(a)(ia), was binding. The mere filing of an SLP against the High Court's decision does not negate its binding nature.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's submissions regarding the non-applicability of the percentage completion method due to project losses and litigation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute deduction under Section 10A by reducing foreign currency expenses from total turnover, following Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal found a lack of clarity on the facts and that the CIT(A) had not examined all the evidence presented by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals. It held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and restored both matters to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted for interest expenditure as the investment was made from surplus funds. For administrative expenses, a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 25,000 was directed. The disallowance for software purchase under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted due to bonafide belief regarding TDS applicability. Interest on belated TDS remittance was disallowed, and TDS credit was restored to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also held that employee contributions to PF and ESI are allowable deductions if paid by the due date of filing the return of income, even if beyond the statutory due dates under the respective Acts.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the sale agreement dated 03.08.2013 was not established as it was unregistered and the advance payment was in cash, not through banking channels. Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the sale deed was rightly adopted.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on repairs was not for bringing a new asset into existence or obtaining a new advantage. Regarding TDS, the Tribunal ruled that if the assessee complied with Section 194C(6) by obtaining declarations from transporters, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was permissible, even if Section 194C(7) was violated.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies from the list used for ALP determination in both software development and ITES segments. The matter of ICRA Online Ltd. and Jeevan Scientific Technology Ltd. was remanded for further examination.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission of additional evidence and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked tangible material to form the belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO's belief was based on surmises and conjectures.
The tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was valid as the assessee did not demand the reasons recorded. For the issues related to land sales and Section 54B deduction, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, following a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to their consistent absence. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as unadmitted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual expenditure debited in the Profit & Loss Account. Since the entire debited amount was already disallowed by the assessee, no further disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal found a lack of clarity on the facts and that the CIT(A) had not examined all the evidence presented by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that a deduction should be allowed for the difference between CPWD and State PWD rates, citing previous judgments. Since the difference in this case was around 12%, which was less than the deductions allowed in similar cases, the addition was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Smt. Ratnakanta B. Agarwal v. ITO is applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal found that the difference between the valuation adopted by the DVO and the price paid by the assessee for the property was less than 5%. In such circumstances, following the precedent, the Tribunal considered the difference as a mere variation in estimation and held that the value adopted by the assessee should be accepted. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(Appeals) was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal found that the issue of reassessment notice under Section 148 and the validity of reassessment proceedings were significant legal grounds. Since these grounds were admitted in a prior appeal and not fully adjudicated, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute deduction under Section 10A by reducing foreign currency expenses from total turnover, following Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal found that the issue of reassessment notice under Section 148 and the validity of reassessment proceedings were significant legal grounds. Since these grounds were admitted in a prior appeal and not fully adjudicated, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed against a non-existent entity after amalgamation is void and cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court's dismissal of appeals on similar grounds further supports this view.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed against a non-existent entity after amalgamation is void and cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court's dismissal of appeals on similar grounds further supports this view.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to properly examine the assessee's eligibility for the Section 54F deduction. While the revision order was justified, the AO should be allowed to examine the issue afresh without being influenced by the Principal CIT's observations.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to follow the jurisdictional High Court's judgment regarding foreign currency expenses. It also confirmed the DRP's decision to exclude comparable companies based on turnover, following established precedent.
The Tribunal found that the issues regarding disallowance of expenses and Section 14A required fresh examination. The assessee's claim of engaging in financing and other businesses, despite a lull, needed substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot set aside matters to the AO as per Section 251(1)(a). However, since the assessee submitted a reconciliation statement for the first time before the CIT(A), the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be pursued. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from continuing with the appeal.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as not pressed. Certain issues were remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was not sustainable. The revenue authorities failed to provide a basis for determining the interest payment as excessive or unreasonable, and there was no tax evasion as the recipient paid taxes on the interest.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 108.00 lakh as the assessee did not furnish any details to substantiate its claim. The appeal was disposed of ex parte due to the absence of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's treatment of the sale consideration received by the assessee's siblings as part of the assessee's income was not reasonable. New documents were admitted to verify the siblings' claim.