Loading ITAT cases…
133 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of having made submissions and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity for proper compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters back for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce evidence.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision. This is to be done after the AO disposes of the assessee's rectification application for AY 2014-15.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order in the name of a deceased assessee was improper. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after bringing the legal heirs on record.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as per the pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applicable for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Tribunal noted that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2013, which allowed such additions for properties acquired for consideration less than stamp duty value, was effective from April 1, 2014.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be allowed to produce evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence and obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the construction of additional floors on a newly purchased residential unit is eligible for deduction under Section 54F, as it forms part of the same residential unit. The Tribunal also found the reasons for the delay in construction to be valid.
The Tribunal held that the lands in question were indeed capital assets as they were notified as 'Urban Residential' by the Karnataka Government, bringing them within the definition of capital assets under Section 2(14) of the IT Act. Consequently, capital gains arising from their sale were taxable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of having appeared and filed submissions, despite the CIT(A)'s noting of non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue regarding the absence of a Section 143(2) notice, despite it being raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on this preliminary technical issue.
The Tribunal noted that deduction under Section 80P is only for societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. Since the assessee's registration under the Cooperative Societies Act was doubtful, the deduction could not be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as copies of statements and related details were not provided, and cross-examination was not allowed. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Chandra Devi Kothari, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as the statement of Mukesh Choksi and the list of beneficiaries were not provided, and cross-examination was not allowed. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO must provide the assessee with all relied-upon documents, including statements and investigation reports, and allow for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as the statement of the Mahasagar Group director and the list of beneficiaries were not provided, nor was cross-examination allowed. Following a Karnataka High Court judgment, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to provide factual findings that the interest payments were excessive or unreasonable considering business needs. Following precedents, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment when requested by the assessee. Since the AO failed to do so, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as the statement and related details were not provided, nor was cross-examination allowed. Following the Karnataka High Court's precedent, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had taken conflicting stands regarding his residential status and income characterization. The issue of residential status, crucial for taxing global income, required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as copies of statements and related details were not provided, and cross-examination was not allowed. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Chandra Devi Kothari, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 155 days, holding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to business disputes in a firm. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as the statement and related details forming the basis of the reassessment were not provided, nor was cross-examination allowed. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing a re-computation of the profit level indicator due to an incorrect presumption by the TPO regarding stock differences. It also restored issues related to the computation of Section 10B deduction and set-off of losses for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue of excluding Schneider Electric President Systems Ltd. to the AO for fresh examination. It also directed the AO to consider the assessee's contention regarding profit before depreciation as a PLI and to confront the workings of OP/OR with the assessee. The issues regarding M/s Lloyd Electrical and Engineering Ltd. and M/s Universal Heat Exchangers Ltd. were also restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO's basis for disallowing agricultural income was factually incorrect, as reports indicated cultivation was carried out. However, income from sale of cocoons was confirmed as non-agricultural.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on technical grounds like manual filing instead of electronic filing, when substantial justice is at stake, is not appropriate. The Tribunal condoned the delay in electronic filing and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked a proper discussion on the assessee's objections regarding the validity of the reassessment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision.
The Tribunal noted that the notice was indeed not served on the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to both parties.
The Tribunal decided to proceed ex parte as the assessee was not appearing and notices were unserved. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the applicability of the principle of mutuality to the interest income was not clearly established. Key aspects like the use of surplus funds and provisions for dissolution were not adequately examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to file the appeal electronically within 30 days, and if filed, the CIT(A) should condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found no factual difference from previous years where the matter was restored to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-examination of expenditure claims relevant to short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove their claimed expenses and did not provide contradictory material against the CIT(A)'s findings. The revision orders under Section 263 were also not shown to be contrary to law.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2007-08 due to low tax effect. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, holding that the penalty notice was invalid for not specifying the exact charge, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the allegation was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2007-08 due to low tax effect. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, holding that the penalty notice was invalid for not specifying the exact charge, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly considered the assessee's claim regarding the indexed cost of the land given to the builder and any additions made to the flat. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude certain comparable companies from the list used for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal also set aside one comparable company for further verification by the TPO/AO.