Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants, when directed by the State Government to be treated as additional grant or converted into State's equity for the project, is not to be considered as income of BMRCL. Such interest is to be capitalized and not treated as revenue receipt.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants, when directed by the State Government to be treated as additional grant or converted into State's equity for the project, is not to be considered as income of BMRCL. Such interest is to be capitalized and not treated as revenue receipt.
The Tribunal held that the compensation paid for the cancellation of the JDA and purchase agreements was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the property. Therefore, it was allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants, when directed by the State Government to be treated as additional grant or converted into State's equity for the project, is not to be considered as income of BMRCL. Such interest is to be capitalized and not treated as revenue receipt.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants, when directed by the State Government to be treated as additional grant or converted into State's equity for the project, is not to be considered as income of BMRCL. Such interest is to be capitalized and not treated as revenue receipt.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored all three grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. This was done in line with the directions given in a previous order concerning the assessee's own appeal on similar issues.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide reasons and rural background. On merits, the Tribunal held that receipts from sugarcane sales, not considered by the CIT(A), should also be treated as agricultural income.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not examined the cash deposits in light of CBDT guidelines for demonetisation period. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.