Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with the deemed consideration on transfer of capital assets being land or building or both, were wrongly applied by the lower authorities. The Tribunal noted that Section 50C specifically refers to 'land or building or both' and does not include 'rights' therein. The Tribunal contrasted this with definitions in Sections 269A and 269UA, where 'rights' in immovable property are explicitly included. Since the capital asset transferred by the assessee was 'Development Rights in the land' and not the 'Land' itself, Section 50C was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that for the assessment year in question, there was no other provision that allowed the AO to substitute any value other than the actual sale consideration received by the assessee when computing capital gains. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, reversing the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that since the payments for software were made prior to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Samsung Electronics and the retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(vi), the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The tribunal confirmed the disallowance under Section 14A. It allowed the provision for labour charges and purchases, finding that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and provided for outstanding expenses. The disallowance of professional charges was set aside and remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the valuation of the immovable property for the purpose of Section 50C without referring it to the DVO, as mandated by the section.
The Tribunal restored the issue of a partial reversal of expenditure to the AO for examination. Regarding the remaining disallowance, the Tribunal held that payments to Gartner Group were royalty and TDS was deductible, upholding the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeal in due course as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal, following its practice in similar cases, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if Form 3 was not received or for any other reason under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that uncertain income, which is not received or realistically collectible, cannot be brought within the purview of taxable income. The Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the CIT(A) was found applicable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeals in due course after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal condoned the delays before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT, emphasizing that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that uncertain income, which is not received or realistically collectible, cannot be brought within the purview of taxable income. The Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the CIT(A) was found applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust was indeed carrying on educational activities by running an institution with a significant number of students and provided financial details to support this. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s finding of insufficient activities was without merit.
The Tribunal held that uncertain income, which is not received or realistically collectible, cannot be brought within the purview of taxable income. The Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the CIT(A) was found applicable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees would withdraw their appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the pending appeal after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course after opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. It held that a fresh examination of the issues by the Assessing Officer, considering the new evidence, was necessary for the cause of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees would withdraw their appeals after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeal as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding reasonable cause for the assessee not furnishing all documents to the AO. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee was also given an opportunity to furnish documents to support its claim of being a startup company, which would exempt it from Section 56(2)(viib).
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination. This was to consider the condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10 by the CIT(Exemptions) and other relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh examination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.