Loading ITAT cases…
430 tribunal orders from the Chandigarh bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 430 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the Supreme Court, the penalty was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was ordered to be deleted.
The tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54 for the purchase of the plot, as the non-construction was due to reasons beyond his control. For the cost of acquisition and improvement, the tribunal directed a revised estimation.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by the Supreme Court, the penalty was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's legal grounds regarding the validity of reopening the assessment. However, for the merits of the case concerning TDS on freight payments and interest calculation, the Tribunal found that factual examination was required.
The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land and situated more than 10 km from municipal limits, thus exempt from capital gains tax. The reopening of assessment was also found to be without proper justification.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not clearly appreciated the facts regarding the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, both issues concerning outstanding liabilities and sundry creditors were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient of the loan must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee company was not a shareholder of M/s Punjab Metallic Pvt. Ltd., the provision was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 40 lacs cash was duly accounted for in the company's books as an imprest and was given to a third party for property purchase, thus the addition was not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed deduction under Section 80IB on the surrendered amount of Rs. 195 lacs as it pertained to the assessee's housing project business.
The Tribunal decided the issue of prior period expenses in favour of the assessee, following a previous order. The issue of income from other sources was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of non-payment of CPF/GPF was also set aside to the AO due to a non-speaking order from the CIT(A) and lack of clear facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including maintaining and preserving historical places, providing facilities for tourists/pilgrims, celebrating Geeta Jayanti, and maintaining the Krishna Museum, were commensurate with its aims and objects and did not involve any activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. The Tribunal found that the activities undertaken by the assessee were unlike those undertaken by M/s Jammu Development Authority. The Tribunal reasoned that museums are akin to temples of learning and impart knowledge to the world at large, and charging fees or receiving state funds does not make them commercial ventures. Similarly, disseminating knowledge through a Light and Sound show about the philosophy of Gita cannot be treated as a commercial exercise, even if it is entertaining or available to the illiterate. The Tribunal emphasized that education need not be solely through books and that audio-visual media are powerful tools for disseminating knowledge. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of any fact, instance, or example on record to show that the trust's activities were commercial ventures, there was no good reason to vary the CIT(A)'s conclusion. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disclosed amount fell within the definition of undisclosed income under section 271AAB. However, it found that the assessee had made efforts to pay the tax and directed the AO to levy the minimum penalty of 10% on the undisclosed income.
The Tribunal decided the issue of prior period expenses in favour of the assessee, following a previous order. The issue of income from other sources was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue of non-payment of CPF/GPF was also set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication due to non-speaking orders from lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding interest on the Agricultural Credit Stabilization Fund was covered by its earlier decision and upheld the CIT(A)'s order on this point. For the provision for standard assets, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter considering various types of assets, treating this ground as partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It deleted the penalty related to interest on delayed payments as the quantum addition was deleted by the High Court. The penalty for interest on FDRs was also deleted, considering it a bonafide belief and not concealment. However, the penalty for duty drawback was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the subsidy needs to be examined in light of the relevant government notification and the 'purpose test' laid down by the Supreme Court. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It deleted the penalty related to interest on delayed payments as the quantum addition was deleted by the High Court. The penalty for interest on FDRs was also deleted, considering it a bonafide belief and not concealment. However, the penalty for duty drawback was confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to re-examine the facts, consider the evidence produced by the assessee, and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in the audit report were due to typographical errors and rectified by filing a revised report. It considered the lapse to be on the part of the auditor and falling within the exception of reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation and not taxable interest. Therefore, it is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, invoking the second proviso to Section 221(1), finding that the default was due to good and sufficient reasons. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancies in the audit report were due to typographical errors and rectified by filing a revised report. It considered the lapse to be on the part of the auditor and falling within the exception of reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary details before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary details before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that while the accounting explanation for the difference was plausible, the TDS credited to the assessee's account constituted income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was partly deleted, but the TDS amount was to be treated as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the fuel losses were a regular occurrence in the business, accepted by the Department in prior years, and the AO's disallowance lacked cogent reasons. For renovation expenses, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, treating them as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly proved the receipt of cash as an advance against the sale of property, and there was no prohibition under Section 269SS for receiving such advances in cash during the relevant period. Therefore, the penalty levied was unjustified.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one opportunity to present its case, subject to prompt appearance.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free funds, the presumption is that these funds were used for investments. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in applying the ITAT ruling to gifts from a stranger HUF. However, the CIT could not initiate proceedings under Section 263 for gifts from the assessee's own HUF, as it was not part of the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'receive' in Section 56(2)(viib) implies actual receipt of consideration, not notional receipt. Since the cheques were not encashed, there was no actual receipt of funds by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the issue was not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the vehicles were registered in the company's name and the perquisite for the director's car use was already added to their individual income, the disallowance on account of maintenance or personal use was not warranted.