Loading ITAT cases…
174 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantial sources of income, including the sale of agricultural land, making the cash deposit not abnormal. The non-disclosure of bank interest was considered an inadvertent omission, and therefore, the penalty was not fit for levy.
The tribunal restored the issue of double addition of capital gains to the AO for re-adjudication. It also directed the AO to delete the addition representing Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of agricultural land, allowing the assessee's grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 40A(3) by applying Rule 6DD(k). However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s estimation of income, restoring the returned income.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 40A(3) by applying Rule 6DD(k). However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s estimation of income, restoring the returned income.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo adjudication. The AO is to verify when the LTCG is liable to be assessed, considering the sale consideration receipt, possession handover, and the claim for Section 54F exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in restoring the interest issue to the AO for verification. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of deemed dividend based on Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2007-08, granting relief on water charges but confirming other disallowances related to professional fees and commission. For AY 2008-09, the appeal concerning gratuity fund payment was allowed for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill as it was acquired by payment of purchase consideration and no depreciation was claimed in earlier years. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI remitted before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill as it was acquired by payment of purchase consideration and no depreciation was claimed in earlier years. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI remitted before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and inferring lack of interest, dismissed the appeal in limine. This decision was based on a precedent from the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Rajasthan Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona, which held that depreciation is allowable even for entities claiming exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition solely based on the guideline rate fixed by the Cotton Association of India, as purchase prices can vary due to quality and other factors. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that merely preferring an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee's explanation for not producing bills was considered reasonable, and the penalty deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, an appeal of the Revenue will not lie before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than ₹10,00,000. The departmental representative agreed that the tax effect was below this limit.
The Tribunal held that if the construction of the residential house is completed within the stipulated period under Section 54F(1), failure to deposit the unutilized sale consideration in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme is not fatal to the claim. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the quantum of investment made within the prescribed period.
The Tribunal confirmed disallowances related to cash payments for diesel and non-deduction of TDS on loan EMIs. It also confirmed disallowances for unpaid VAT. However, the matter of diverting interest-bearing funds was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal confirmed disallowances related to cash payments for diesel and non-deduction of TDS on loan EMIs. It also confirmed disallowances for unpaid VAT. However, the matter of diverting interest-bearing funds was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal confirmed disallowances related to cash payments for diesel and non-deduction of TDS on loan EMIs. It also confirmed disallowances for unpaid VAT. However, the matter of diverting interest-bearing funds was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. The assessee did not wish to press their cross-objection.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly addressed whether the share transactions met the conditions of Section 111A and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding the exemption for long-term capital gains from the emerging sector fund, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the relevant provisions and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that advances to other charitable institutions with similar objects do not violate Section 13(1)(d). It also confirmed the eligibility of depreciation and the treatment of corpus donations, and found no violation regarding trustee remuneration.
The Tribunal held that the AO had already accepted the Long Term Capital Gains based on the full sale consideration. Therefore, making a further addition under 'other sources' for the same sale consideration amounted to a double addition, which was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that advances to other charitable institutions with similar objects do not violate Section 13(1)(d). It also confirmed the eligibility of depreciation and the treatment of corpus donations, and found no violation regarding trustee remuneration.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly addressed whether the share transactions met the conditions of Section 111A and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding the exemption for long-term capital gains from the emerging sector fund, the Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the relevant provisions and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal confirmed disallowances related to cash payments for diesel and non-deduction of TDS on loan EMIs. It also confirmed disallowances for unpaid VAT. However, the matter of diverting interest-bearing funds was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal confirmed disallowances related to cash payments for diesel and non-deduction of TDS on EMI payments. It also confirmed disallowances for unpaid VAT. However, it remanded the issue of diverting interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal confirmed disallowances related to cash payments for diesel and non-deduction of TDS on loan EMIs. It also confirmed disallowances for unpaid VAT. However, the matter of diverting interest-bearing funds was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal, following the Apex Court's judgment in Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, held that a charitable institution is entitled to depreciation even if the cost of the asset was allowed as application of income in the year of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income could not be disallowed fully and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination with additional evidence. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, finding that the assessee had adequate capital and investments were not necessarily out of borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that since the recipient company (holding company) had accounted for the payment, paid taxes on it, and filed its return of income, the assessee is entitled to relief. The amendment to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding deductee discharging tax liability, was considered applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere. The CIT(A)'s decision was based on jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that for computing the cost of electricity generated and consumed captively, the cost fixed by the State Electricity Board, including duties and taxes, must be considered. The Assessing Officer's difficulty in understanding electricity laws was noted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without disposing of the assessee's objections through a speaking order is void ab initio. This procedural lapse vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation and interest, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to establish ownership of the asset and its use for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not clearly state the reason for initiating penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty levied was unsustainable and cancelled.
The Tribunal held that for computing the cost of electricity generated and consumed captively, the cost fixed by the State Electricity Board, including duty and taxes, must be taken into account for deduction under Section 80-IA.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for re-opening the assessment were not provided to the assessee before the completion of the re-assessment. Following precedents, the Tribunal found the re-assessment to be invalid and liable to be annulled.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was a deduction for non-compliance with commercial contract terms, not an offense or prohibited by law. Therefore, Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the payment related back to the date of the cheque issue once honored. The proviso to Section 43B allows for such claims if paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the non-inclusion of the expenditure for fringe benefit computation was an oversight due to mistake, not contumacious conduct. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality could not be applied to interest earned from a non-member (Indian Bank). However, it ruled that depreciation was allowable as the assessee's properties were used for carrying out activities directed by the High Court, treating it as business use.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to multiple adjournments. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction as the employee's contribution towards PF/ESI was remitted prior to the last day of filing the return, even if after the due date. This was in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 234B, making interest chargeable on assessed tax with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989, was valid. Therefore, the levy of interest based on the assessed income was correct.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided personal guarantees and collateral security for loans raised by the company. However, the exact nature and extent of these arrangements, and whether they established a quid-pro-quo, required further examination.
The Tribunal found that more facts needed to be examined to determine if the loan was deemed dividend. Specifically, it was unclear if the same collateral was offered for multiple loans and the extent of the assessee's detriment from providing guarantees.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality could not be applied to interest earned from a non-member (Indian Bank). However, it ruled that depreciation was allowable as the assessee's properties were used for carrying out activities directed by the High Court, treating it as business use.
The Tribunal held that the delay of nine days was not so substantial as to warrant dismissal and that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that even if the cost of an asset is claimed as application of income, a charitable institution is still entitled to claim depreciation. This decision followed the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT v. Rajasthan And Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona.
The CIT(Appeals) correctly restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of the exempt dividend income, following the Madras High Court judgment in Redington (India) Ltd.