Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 54F by entering into agreements for construction and land purchase, and had invested the capital gains in the construction of a residential house.
The Tribunal held that the sign-on bonus is revenue receipt and cannot be treated as a capital receipt or compensation. Since the assessee voluntarily resigned and violated the employment pre-conditions, the repayment of the bonus does not permit a reduction from gross salary.
The Tribunal held that the brochure was not incriminating material and that the statement from a buyer did not support the claim of on-money. Therefore, there was no justification for reopening the assessments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the subsequent year, following previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Court.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as there was no evidence of on-money receipt, and the statement relied upon by the Assessing Officer did not support the claim. The CIT(Appeals)'s order deleting the additions was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the brochure was not incriminating material and that the statement from a buyer did not support the claim of on-money. Therefore, there was no justification for reopening the assessments.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for ESOP costs was valid as no opinion was formed in the original assessment. Regarding bad debts, the Tribunal found that the conditions under Section 36(2)(i) were not met as the debt was not previously offered to tax, and the shares remained with the assessee, thus not constituting a bad debt at that stage.
The Tribunal held that SARs received by employees of a subsidiary from its parent company are in the nature of perquisites and taxable as revenue receipts in India. The claim of capital gains was rejected as the SARs did not confer ownership of shares.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A needed re-examination due to lack of material regarding investments and income. The Tribunal confirmed the direction to verify TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that SARs received by employees of a subsidiary from its parent company are in the nature of perquisites and taxable as revenue receipts in India. The claim of capital gains was rejected as the SARs did not confer ownership of shares.
The Tribunal held that SARs received by employees of a subsidiary from its parent company are in the nature of perquisites and taxable as revenue receipts in India. The claim of capital gains was rejected as the SARs did not confer ownership of shares.
The Tribunal held that the management fees payment needed reconsideration as the Transfer Pricing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel did not follow prescribed methods for comparison. Regarding depreciation on non-compete fees, the Tribunal allowed the claim, stating that the pendency of a revenue appeal before the High Court is not a ground for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for ESOP costs was valid as no opinion was formed in the original assessment. Regarding bad debts, the Tribunal found that the conditions under Section 36(2)(i) were not met as the debt was not previously offered to tax, and the shares remained with the assessee, thus not constituting a bad debt at that stage.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for ESOP costs was valid as no opinion was formed in the original assessment. Regarding bad debts, the Tribunal found that the conditions under Section 36(2)(i) were not met as the debt was not previously offered to tax, and the shares remained with the assessee, thus not constituting a bad debt at that stage.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the subsequent year, following previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the subsequent year, following previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the exemption under Section 54EC for investments made within six months of the transfer of the asset, even if they fall into two financial years, provided the total investment does not exceed Rs. 1 crore. The Tribunal also ruled that minor children are eligible for this exemption, and any remaining income should be clubbed with the parent's income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business had not commenced as of the relevant assessment year, as acquiring land and incurring preliminary expenses do not constitute business commencement. Therefore, setting off interest income against pre-operative expenditure was not permissible.