Loading ITAT cases…
164 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 for penalty was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for the partner's education abroad was personal in nature and not for the exclusive benefit of the firm's business. The partner left the firm shortly after completing the course and settled abroad.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable as application of income for exemption under Section 11, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. Regarding excess expenditure, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute and allow set-off if excess application in earlier years existed.
The Tribunal found that the AO had pointed out discrepancies in the assessee's submissions regarding cash payments and time deposits, which were not adequately addressed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred before commencement of business cannot be allowed as business expenditure. It also held that interest earned on fixed deposits before commencement of business is taxable as income from other sources, following the Supreme Court decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remit the issue back to the AO. The AO needs to examine a certificate from the employer confirming the assessee's employment and presence in international waters during the relevant period.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to set aside issues to the AO for fresh consideration after a certain date. However, given the prior decision on a similar issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to determine income based on invoices and grant TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision on the Cost Inflation Index was correct, following the Bombay High Court. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 54F deduction due to lack of evidence of construction completion. The issue of Section 80E deduction was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, dismissed the appeals in limine. This decision was based on precedents from other High Courts and ITAT benches.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal, dismissed the appeals in limine. This decision was based on precedents from other High Courts and ITAT benches.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA, though not made in the revised return, should be examined. The assessee's bonafide belief regarding the year of assessment for the income was considered.
The Tribunal found that the issue of reopening of assessment was raised for the first time before it. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to first decide on the validity of the reopening. If the reopening is found valid, the CIT(A) should then decide the addition on merits, including providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 72 days was due to the negligence and inaction of the assessee and did not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that delays avoidable by due care and attention cannot be condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's action of filing a revised return was not voluntary but a consequence of the survey and subsequent proceedings. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the omission in her original return, thus attracting penalty.