Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that intimations under Section 200A are appealable under Section 246A, and the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable. Furthermore, fees under Section 234E levied prior to June 1, 2015, through Section 200A intimations were without authority of law.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80-IC denying the benefit of deduction to new units undertaking substantial expansion. The jurisdictional High Court had decided this issue in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the case were insufficient as there was no nexus between the information received from the Directorate of Income Tax and the assessee's case. The reassessment was based on a change of opinion without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar in Section 80-IC denying the benefit of deduction to new units undertaking substantial expansion. The jurisdictional High Court had decided this issue in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined the issues raised by the PCIT and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation. Therefore, the PCIT's order was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the addition for cash deposits was made in the original assessment and no new addition was made under section 153A. The outcome of the appeal against the original assessment would apply.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The Revenue's counsel stated they would not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since approval under Section 153D was obtained for the original assessment, a fresh approval was not required for the de novo assessment ordered by the CIT under Section 263. The Assessing Officer was bound to comply with the CIT's order.
The Tribunal held that while the interest income received by the assessee from the fund was taxable, the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the income to nil was incorrect. The AO's addition was based on the share of income accrued/arising, but for the assessment year in question, only 'income received' was taxable under Section 115U prior to the 2012 amendment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly deleted the disallowance by following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, which stated that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal also noted that CBDT circulars are not binding on courts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income regarding unaccounted sales and initial investment, thus upholding the penalty for those issues. However, for the capital gains issue, the Tribunal found it not a fit case for penalty as the assessee had partially substantiated the cost of improvement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income regarding unaccounted sales and initial investment, thus upholding the penalty for those issues. However, for the capital gains issue, the Tribunal found it not a fit case for penalty as the assessee had partially substantiated the cost of improvement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income regarding unaccounted sales and initial investment, thus upholding the penalty for those issues. However, for the capital gains issue, the Tribunal found it not a fit case for penalty as the assessee had partially substantiated the cost of improvement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income regarding unaccounted sales and initial investment, thus upholding the penalty for those issues. However, for the capital gains issue, the Tribunal found it not a fit case for penalty as the assessee had partially substantiated the cost of improvement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income regarding unaccounted sales and initial investment, thus upholding the penalty for those issues. However, for the capital gains issue, the Tribunal found it not a fit case for penalty as the assessee had partially substantiated the cost of improvement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income regarding unaccounted sales and initial investment, thus upholding the penalty for those issues. However, for the capital gains issue, the Tribunal found it not a fit case for penalty as the assessee had partially substantiated the cost of improvement.
The Tribunal held that the AO's dissatisfaction with the correctness of the assessee's claim was absent. Given the assessee had already disallowed a significant portion of expenses on a scientific basis, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that in cases of concluded assessments, additions under Section 153A are not warranted in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action. This decision followed various High Court judgments.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the tax-free income earned. The disallowance should be limited to the amount of tax-free income.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the rejection of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) provided a reasonable belief of escaped income. The denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and Sections 11-13 was also upheld based on the High Court's decision and the lack of registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the wife, being a CA, could offer financial advice. However, considering the possibility of personal enjoyment and her not being fully involved in business activities, the disallowance was restricted to 50% of the amount originally disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that non-maintenance of a stock register alone is not sufficient for rejecting books of account if other records are maintained. However, the genuineness of transactions with M/s Shivalik Enterprise requires further examination.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the rejection of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) provided a reasonable belief of escaped income. The denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and Sections 11-13 was also upheld based on the High Court's decision and the lack of registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had been uncooperative, there was a valid reason for not attending the last hearing before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of capital gains was debatable, and the assessee acted bonafidely by offering tax on amounts received. Relying on coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found no justification for penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and remanded the matter back. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and present necessary information.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of capital gains was debatable, and the assessee acted bonafidely by offering tax on amounts received. Relying on coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found no justification for penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the excise duty, paid in advance in earlier years, crystallized as a loss or cost in the impugned year when it lost its utility. Therefore, it was an expense of the current year and allowable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's inquiries were sufficient, as the assessee had provided all necessary details and the overall financial results were positive. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that TDS payable is not an expense disallowable under Section 43B. For disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if payees had paid taxes, citing a retrospective amendment. For the interest disallowance, the Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is warranted if sufficient interest-free funds are available for interest-free advances, as demonstrated by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not make an effective representation due to being incarcerated at the time of the assessment order. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal quashed the penalty order. Since the additions leading to the penalty were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty itself was no longer sustainable.
The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence, obtained a remand report from the AO, and found that the AO verified the genuineness of the documents. Based on this, the CIT(A) concluded that the assessee proved the source of deposits and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the association was not a contractor and therefore, the provisions of Section 194C and 194J were not attracted. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify if the association had deducted TDS while making payments to the actual advertisers.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the share purchase and sale transactions. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence regarding the availability of funds for the purchase and the suspicious nature of the transaction, which yielded an exceptionally high return in a short period.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is attracted if the assessee has not earned any tax-exempt income. It also ruled that High Court and Supreme Court decisions overrule CBDT circulars that contradict statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is attracted if the assessee has not earned any tax-exempt income. It also ruled that High Court and Supreme Court decisions overrule CBDT circulars that contradict statutory provisions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Form No. 10 was filed, albeit with a delay in e-filing. The Tribunal affirmed that such compliance is sufficient under Section 11(2) and that the issue should have been addressed in regular assessment proceedings, not under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely based on the non-filing of past returns and absence of PAN. The genuineness of objects and activities are the primary criteria for registration.
The tribunal held that filing an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just the act of filing. Since the assessee was avoiding service and not pursuing the appeal, it was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS on interest payment to L&T Finance Ltd. to the Assessing Officer for verification of the payee's tax compliance. For payments to Head Jamadars, the Tribunal held that these were payments to daily laborers and not contractors, thus Section 40A(3) and Section 40(a)(ia) were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a) was not warranted as the AO failed to establish that the goods purchased from the sister concern were at an excessive price compared to market rates. Regarding the turnover discount, the Tribunal held it was not in the nature of commission, thus no TDS was required.
The Tribunal held that expansion in a hotel building, including furniture and fixtures, constitutes an investment in plant and machinery for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IC, if planned for special technical requirements of hospitality services.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that expansion in a hotel building, including furniture and fixtures, constitutes an investment in plant and machinery for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IC, if planned for special technical requirements of hospitality services.
The tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that expansion in a hotel building, including furniture and fixtures, constitutes an investment in plant and machinery for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80IC, if planned for special technical requirements of hospitality services.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment had attained finality and no incriminating material was found during the search, additions under Section 153A were not warranted. The assessment proceedings were set aside.