Loading ITAT cases…
147 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that for properties acquired through gifts, the holding period of the previous owner must be considered for indexing the cost of acquisition, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the deductions was not found to be false or improbable, and the loan from Cholamandalam DBS was used to clear the son's housing loan. Therefore, it was not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the incentives provided under the sales promotion schemes were not in the nature of interest and therefore, Section 194A was not applicable. It also held that bank charges for facilitating card payments did not constitute fees for technical services under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is chargeable from the first day of the assessment year until the date of completion of the final assessment order (20.03.2013), even if an earlier assessment order was passed. The Tribunal found that the revisional order by the CIT resulted in an enhancement of assessed income, making the assessee liable for interest on the increased shortfall.
The Tribunal held that the owner of a building is chargeable to income tax under the head 'Income from House Property' irrespective of whether they own the land on which the building stands. Therefore, the rental income was correctly assessed under 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that the owner of a building is chargeable to income tax under the head 'Income from House Property' irrespective of whether they own the land on which the building stands. Therefore, the rental income was correctly assessed under 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that the owner of a building is chargeable to income tax under the head 'Income from House Property' irrespective of whether they own the land on which the building stands. Therefore, the rental income was correctly assessed under 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that the owner of a building is chargeable to income tax under the head 'Income from House Property' irrespective of whether they own the land on which the building stands. Therefore, the rental income was correctly assessed under 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is chargeable from the first day of the assessment year until the date of completion of the final assessment order (20.03.2013), even if an earlier assessment order was passed. The Tribunal found that the revisional order by the CIT resulted in an enhancement of assessed income, making the assessee liable for interest on the increased shortfall.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is chargeable from the first day of the assessment year until the date of completion of the final assessment order (20.03.2013), even if an earlier assessment order was passed. The Tribunal found that the revisional order by the CIT resulted in an enhancement of assessed income, making the assessee liable for interest on the increased shortfall.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from the building is chargeable under the head 'Income from House Property' as the assessee is the owner of the building, even if not the owner of the land. Consequently, only deductions as per Section 24 of the Act are admissible.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from the building owned by the assessee, even if situated on leased land, is chargeable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, only deductions as per Section 24 of the Act are admissible.
The Tribunal held that the owner of a building is chargeable to income tax under the head 'Income from House Property' irrespective of whether they own the land on which the building stands. Therefore, the rental income was correctly assessed under 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal held that pooling land with others for better price realization through development and sale as housing plots does not automatically convert the transaction into business income. The CIT(A)'s decision to treat it as capital gains was upheld.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee had instructed him to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the STBs were consumable in the assessee's business and did not provide any enduring benefit or enhancement to the assessee's assets. Therefore, the expenditure incurred on STBs was to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that since the TDS and interest were remitted well before the initiation of penalty proceedings and the assessee's claim of unawareness of provisions was reasonable, the penalty levied under Section 271C should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is chargeable from the first day of the assessment year until the date of completion of the final assessment order (20.03.2013), even if an earlier assessment order was passed. The Tribunal found that the revisional order by the CIT resulted in an enhancement of assessed income, making the assessee liable for interest on the increased shortfall.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54F as the construction and acquisition of the new flat were completed within two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset. The Tribunal followed the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in Smt. Beena K. Jain.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be re-examined by the AO to verify if the payees had declared the payments as income and paid tax. If so, Section 40(a)(ia) would not apply to that extent.
The Tribunal noted that the circular relied upon by a previous bench regarding client code modifications was not applicable for the assessment year in question. Since the assessee could not reconcile the modifications with the transactions and the AO's extracted details, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding. The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed based on investments yielding income not forming part of total income.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-determine the eligible deduction under Section 54F. This was to ascertain the extent of land appurtenant to the building, following guidelines laid down by the High Courts.
The Tribunal held that payments for distribution/exhibition rights of cinematographic films are excluded from the definition of royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as being in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for valuing the property, despite the assessee challenging the valuation. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after obtaining a valuation report.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was given multiple opportunities, they had sought adjournments and their written submissions were not considered. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one final opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings for earlier assessment years. It found that the transfer was a slump sale of a logistics division as a going concern, and there was insufficient evidence to prove it was a colourable exercise to evade tax.
The Tribunal held that payments for distribution/exhibition rights of cinematographic films are excluded from the definition of royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as being in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the case was squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal for earlier assessment years on the same issue. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a commercial one, involving the sale of shares at market value to repay the loan. It did not involve the distribution of accumulated profits or release of company assets as contemplated by Section 2(22)(a).
The Tribunal held that common areas cannot be included in the built-up area for calculating the deduction limit under Section 80-IB(10). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of the Madras High Court judgment and planning permission.
The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid to ward off competition constitute capital expenditure. Such expenditure is not eligible for depreciation as it does not create an asset in the capital field in the manner contemplated by Section 32(1)(iii).
The Tribunal held that common areas cannot be included in the built-up area for calculating the deduction limit under Section 80-IB(10). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of the Madras High Court judgment and planning permission.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the deletion of disallowance of service tax written off was justified. The Tribunal also set aside issues related to demurrage charges and other payments without TDS for fresh examination by the AO.
The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid to ward off competition constitute capital expenditure. Such expenditure is not eligible for depreciation as it does not create an asset in the capital field in the manner contemplated by Section 32(1)(iii).
The Tribunal held that income from hiring charges of the convention hall and training fees received from corporates are eligible for exemption under Section 11, provided they are applied for the trust's charitable objects. The claim for depreciation was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found merit in providing the assessee with another opportunity to present her case. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that income from hiring charges of the convention hall and training fees received from corporates are eligible for exemption under Section 11, provided they are applied for the trust's charitable objects. The claim for depreciation was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the deletion of disallowance of service tax written off was justified. The Tribunal also set aside issues related to demurrage charges and other payments without TDS for fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that common areas cannot be included in the built-up area for calculating the deduction limit under Section 80-IB(10). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of the Madras High Court judgment and planning permission.
The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., held that non-compete fee is a commercial right and eligible for depreciation. Consequently, the disallowance by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., held that non-compete fee is a commercial right and eligible for depreciation. Consequently, the disallowance by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the disallowed depreciation, and the AO's remand report accepted the cash deposits as genuine. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal found that the AO had estimated income based on expenses without rejecting the books of account, which was deemed inappropriate. The CIT(A) had also merely followed the AO's decision.
The Tribunal held that the software expenses were revenue in nature as they were for a period of one year and renewable, directing the AO to delete the addition. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld due to lack of evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the CIT(A) to expedite the proceedings.