Loading ITAT cases…
153 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries cannot create an enforceable liability, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries cannot create an enforceable liability, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries cannot create an enforceable liability, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that no depreciation on goodwill and know-how is admissible as there was no actual cost incurred in acquiring them. It also ruled that book entries do not create enforceable liabilities, disallowing interest paid on partner balances.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(38) as the omission was due to inadvertence and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The appellate authorities have the power to grant such claims even if not made in the original return.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not the owner of the land, the lease rent paid for the land must be excluded when computing the annual rental value of the property. The income from house property should only be computed on the income derived from the superstructure owned by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has coterminous powers with the Assessing Officer and is expected to decide the appeal on merit, irrespective of the assessee's appearance. Dismissing the appeal for non-appearance is not permissible.
The Tribunal observed that the AO had not passed a speaking order considering the issues. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case. It was held that payments for 'off-the-shelf' software licenses do not constitute royalty and thus no TDS was deductible.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not the owner of the land, the lease rent paid for the land must be excluded when computing the annual rental value of the property. The income from house property should only be computed on the income derived from the superstructure owned by the assessee.
The Tribunal, considering the absence of books of accounts and similar past cases, directed the Assessing Officer to consider 4% of the total receipt as commission, instead of the 5% estimated by the AO.
The tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the payments were for logistic services, not fees for technical services, and that the retrospective amendment to Section 9(2) could not be applied retrospectively for TDS obligations. The assessee cannot be expected to foresee future amendments for TDS compliance.
The Tribunal held that the payments were for logistic services, not fees for technical services, and that the retrospective amendment to Section 9(2) could not be applied retrospectively for TDS obligations. The assessee cannot be expected to foresee future amendments for TDS compliance.
The Tribunal found that the report from the PCIT was not provided to the assessee for rebuttal. While the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the donation, any evidence suggesting it's an accommodation entry must also be shared with the assessee for rebuttal.
The Tribunal noted that a tax audit report was filed, but complete details were not produced. Since both parties requested another opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, admitted fresh evidence produced by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dead person is a nullity and not rectifiable. The appeal filed against a dead person is also invalid.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, admitted fresh evidence produced by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. It was held that the advances received by the assessees were in the nature of commercial transactions for the benefit of the companies.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. It was held that the advances received by the assessees were in the nature of commercial transactions for the benefit of the companies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished complete particulars with a bonafide belief, and the AO merely rejected the claim during scrutiny assessment. Since the assessee agreed and paid the tax, and the CIT(A) found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, admitted fresh evidence produced by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if no exempted income was earned. It also confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow the ESI contribution as the payment was made before the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment was justified due to new material from the survey. However, regarding the disallowance of loss, the Tribunal found that the matter needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer after providing the SEBI list and any recorded statements.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dead person is a nullity and not rectifiable. The appeal filed against a dead person is also invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order lacked application of mind as it did not reflect any reasoning for the conclusion reached regarding the rental value. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was justified in revising the order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to prove the creditworthiness, genuineness, and identity of creditors. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination with fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that the date of investment should be considered as the date when sufficient funds were actually deposited in the bank account to clear the cheque, not the date of issuing the cheque. Therefore, the addition for the assessment year 2005-06 was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. It was held that the advances received by the assessees were in the nature of commercial transactions for the benefit of the companies.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, admitted fresh evidence produced by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) based on the consistent view of co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for prior years. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous as they only supported the CIT(Appeals) order.
The Tribunal held that the advance written off as bad debt is not revenue in nature. The basic condition for claiming bad debt, which is offering such advance as income in earlier years, was not fulfilled.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, admitted fresh evidence produced by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. It directed the AO to admit any fresh evidence submitted by the assessee and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and merits, while also cautioning the assessee to promptly cooperate.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, admitted fresh evidence produced by the assessee and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo consideration. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) based on the consistent view of co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for prior years. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous as they only supported the CIT(Appeals) order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) based on the consistent view of co-ordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for prior years. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous as they only supported the CIT(Appeals) order.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. The AO had no information about the valuation under Section 47A of the Registration Act during the original assessment. Upon receiving this information, which showed a discrepancy with the sale consideration, the assessment was re-opened. Therefore, the assessee's plea regarding the validity of re-opening was dismissed. Regarding the computation of long-term capital gains, the Tribunal, following its decision in the co-owner's case (Shri K. Ramaswamy Shetty), set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted all issues to the AO for fresh examination and decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The grounds related to re-opening were dismissed, but the grounds concerning capital gains computation were allowed for statistical purposes. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 2546/2017), the Tribunal found that the assessee had not disclosed the sale of property and its consequential gains in the return at all. The case was selected for scrutiny based on AIR information. The assessee's shifting claims for exemption under Sections 54 and 54F, which were found untenable, indicated a clear failure to disclose the sale and gains. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the prayer of the assessee's representative and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.