Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the capital gain in question cannot be brought to tax in the assessment year 2016-17, as the transfer took place on the date of the sale agreement in an earlier year. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on capital work-in-progress should be remitted to the AO for fresh examination, requiring the assessee to demonstrate sufficient interest-free funds. For employee contributions to PF and ESI, the issue was remitted to the AO to verify if payments were made before the return filing due date. The disallowance of interest paid to NBFC was confirmed due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest on loan to the AO for fresh examination, directing them to consider if it increases the cost of acquisition in light of a High Court ruling. For the unexplained money, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. The addition of Rs. 1,18,354 related to a gift from the father was deleted, but the addition of Rs. 1,44,500 for savings and drawings from Citibank was confirmed. The addition related to unexplained credits in the Vijaya Bank account was deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and evidence, noting that the lower authorities had not examined them. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not attending the hearings before the CIT(Appeals) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and evidence, noting that the lower authorities had not examined them. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the builder's delay in executing the sale deed for the new residential property. It also noted that owning multiple units within one house might not violate Section 54F. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination of these points.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections before completing the assessment vitiated the assessment order. This procedural lapse was found to be contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that a building constructed with multiple residential units does not lose its character as 'one residential house' for the purpose of Section 54F. The AO's reasoning for rejecting the deduction was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering additional evidence regarding the layout charges and remanded the issue for fresh examination. Regarding assets written off, the Tribunal found that the issue of double disallowance was not examined and remanded it to the CIT(A) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was silent on the basis of his conclusions regarding the issues raised for limited scrutiny. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Infosys Technologies Ltd., the Tribunal confirmed the CIT's order directing a fresh examination of the issues.
The Tribunal held that the issue of exemption for contract farming income needs to be remanded to the AO for re-categorization based on the Karnataka High Court's ruling. For Section 14A disallowance, it was directed to be restricted to the exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenses under the Income Tax Act. Revenue expenses incurred in an earlier year cannot be allowed as a deduction in the current year, and the principle of consistency does not apply when prior year assessments were processed under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on intangible assets, following previous consistent rulings. Regarding AMP expenditure, the Tribunal found the TPO's approach of using the Bright Line Test and combining it with royalty payments inappropriate and restored the issue for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 20,86,354 due to Nalini Mohan, initially shown as a liability, needed re-examination by the AO to determine if it was income from business. The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine as the Vivad Se Vishwas application was for a different appeal. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was more appropriate for transfer pricing adjustments concerning commodity transactions, and the TPO erred in adopting the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of IT support and maintenance charges as prior period expenses, finding no sufficient evidence of crystallization in the current year.
The Tribunal held that while the interest income from investments with co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or 80P(2)(a)(i), the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate expenditure incurred in earning such income as a deduction under Section 57.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 were unwarranted as the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal deleted all the additions made under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of AGM expenses required fresh adjudication by the CIT(A) due to conflicting factual submissions. Similarly, the disallowance of provision for bad and doubtful debts was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as it was not properly adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the maturity proceeds of a fixed deposit are capital receipts and not income, and thus the addition made by the AO was incorrect. It also confirmed the rejection of certain claims for application of income due to lack of details or expenditure being already claimed. However, it directed the AO to consider the claim for accumulation of income under Section 11(2) as Form 10 was filed before the completion of assessment.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to pending rectification and pandemic-related issues. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the full TDS credit claimed by the assessee as per Section 199 read with Section 205 of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that while the interest income from investments with co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or 80P(2)(a)(i), the assessee is entitled to claim proportionate expenditure incurred in earning such income as a deduction under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal restored the issues of income from club and card room to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. This was done because identical issues for prior assessment years had also been restored to the AO.
The ITAT decided to restore the issue of addition under Section 68 to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, as the previous order was ex parte. The addition under Section 40A(3) was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the quashing of assessment orders does not automatically invalidate the penalty orders. The CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty orders on that ground.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the quashing of assessment orders does not automatically invalidate the penalty orders. The CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty orders on that ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessment in the hands of the HUF was invalid because the HUF had been partitioned and ceased to exist before the assessment order was passed, and Section 171 of the Act was not applicable as the HUF was not previously assessed.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of software in this case does not constitute royalty for the use of copyright and does not give rise to taxable income in India. Therefore, the assessee has no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of Supreme Court judgments. The claim for deduction on interest income from investments was also to be examined afresh.
The Tribunal held that the grounds regarding non-service of notices under Section 148 and 142(1) were dismissed as the assessee's mother had participated in the proceedings. However, on merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to refer the property valuation to the Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the fair market value.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the impugned addition was offered as income in subsequent assessment years, and if so, to delete the addition for the current year to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s relief of Rs. 1.5 lakh was insufficient. It directed the Assessing Officer to further allow credit for Rs. 3.5 lakh, meaning only Rs. 4 lakh would be taxed as unexplained cash deposit.
The Tribunal held that the DRP does not have the power to condone delays in filing objections. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plea that the assessment order was barred by limitation, as it was not passed pursuant to DRP directions.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the quashing of assessment orders does not automatically invalidate the penalty orders. The CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty orders on that ground.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the quashing of assessment orders does not automatically invalidate the penalty orders. The CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty orders on that ground.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the quashing of assessment orders does not automatically invalidate the penalty orders. The CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty orders on that ground.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred prior to business commencement, which are directly attributable to bringing a capital asset into existence and working condition, should be capitalized. Depreciation is admissible on such capitalized costs.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, agreeing that the AO's assessment order was passed without proper inquiry and was therefore erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Sections 271D and 271E are independent of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the quashing of assessment orders does not automatically invalidate the penalty orders. The CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty orders on that ground.
The Tribunal upheld the addition for undisclosed sales and toll charges, finding the assessee unable to reconcile the discrepancies. However, the enhancement of the addition for purchases by the CIT(A) was deleted due to lack of proper notice and reliance on incorrect figures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter after the outcome of the assessee's pending condonation petition for belatedly filing Form No.10.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P needs reconsideration in light of the Apex Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-examine the matter after affording a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, they are eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered 'co-operative societies' under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the denial of deduction solely on this ground was incorrect.