Loading ITAT cases…
147 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the issue of addition under Section 68 had attained finality. However, the genuineness of the loss in share trading, which was claimed to be set off against the cash credit, needed to be verified by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure pertained to the financial year 2011-12 (assessment year 2012-13) as per the mercantile system of accounting. Therefore, it could not be claimed in assessment year 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of car parking charges was excessive as the assessee had only admitted to collecting charges for six flats, and purchasers denied paying such charges for other flats. Similarly, additions for additional sale consideration were deleted due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect less than Rs. 20,00,000 do not lie before the Tribunal. The Departmental Representative conceded this point.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that a new residential house was constructed within the stipulated time for claiming deduction under Section 54F. The claim that the land sold was agricultural was also not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the opening capital and the amounts claimed as cash, agricultural produce, and stock. The Tribunal also found that the drawings and taxes paid in earlier years were not explained, thus impacting the opening capital. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was considered an error.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 11 days, finding no benefit to the assessee from the delay. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
While the assessee had not cooperated with the CIT(A), the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to be heard, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E levy is a statutory fee for default in furnishing statements, not compensation. Reasonable cause for delay should be considered, and in this case, the delay due to the representative's failure was accepted.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E levy is a statutory fee for default, not compensation, and thus, principles of natural justice apply. A reasonable cause for the default can be considered.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E levy is a statutory fee for default, not compensation, and thus, principles of natural justice apply. A reasonable cause for the default can be considered.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on RTO information without providing a copy to the assessee was not justifiable. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the RTO information to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The High Court held that if employees' contributions are remitted before the due date for filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 43B as amended.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that if employee contributions are remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 43B as amended. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on RTO information without providing a copy to the assessee was not justifiable. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the RTO information to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of making additions based on RTO information without providing a copy to the assessee was not justifiable. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the RTO information to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee was withdrawing the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this submission.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the write-off of deposits, stating the assessee failed to provide evidence of refund claims or justification for not pursuing them. However, the alternative claim to add forfeited amounts to the cost of construction was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the gift of land and interest-free loans to an unregistered trust, along with payment of trustee's electricity bills, constituted violations of Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, leading to denial of exemption under Section 11. The Cross Objection regarding depreciation was allowed based on a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the refund was due to relief granted. Therefore, the proceedings resulting in the refund were not delayed due to reasons attributable to the assessee, entitling them to interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E levy is a statutory fee for default, not compensation, and thus, principles of natural justice apply. A reasonable cause for the default can be considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate the claim for cost of improvement and the partial ownership for capital gains. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate the claim for cost of improvement and the partial ownership for capital gains. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the salaries paid were excessive, the disallowance should not be absolute. It directed that a total salary of Rs. 4,24,000 for all four individuals would be a fair value for the services rendered.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when exempt income is earned. Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on statements recorded during a survey without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities relied on reports and statements without providing them to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue of whether the share transactions were real or sham requires reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the nomenclature of the provision might not be critical, as long as it represented a provision for bad and doubtful debts. However, it was necessary for the assessee to demonstrate that the debits to the profit and loss account were indeed for bad and doubtful debts.
The Tribunal held that the nomenclature of the provision might not be critical, as long as it represented a provision for bad and doubtful debts. However, it was necessary for the assessee to demonstrate that the debits to the profit and loss account were indeed for bad and doubtful debts.
The Tribunal held that the nomenclature of the provision might not be critical if it represents a provision for bad and doubtful debts. However, the assessee needs to demonstrate that the debits made to the profit and loss account indeed represent such provisions.
The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 2 as not pressed. The remaining grounds (3 to 5) dealt with disallowance of expenses for vacating tenants, construction cost, and Section 54 relief. The Assessing Officer disputed the assessee's valuation of the property as of 01.04.1981.
The tribunal held that the offer of sales discount is a commercial exigency and the revenue authorities cannot question the manner of conducting business. The discount offered was reasonable, constituting only 0.25% of the turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in remitting the Section 14A issue back to the AO without proper examination, and followed a previous ruling to remit it for fresh computation. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to disprove the genuineness of sundry creditors despite the assessee providing confirmations, and directed deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of Section 14A by restoring it to the AO for re-adjudication, following a coordinate bench decision. For Section 36(1)(viii) and 36(1)(viia)(c), the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision and held in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that normal depreciation is a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of a charitable trust, even if the asset cost was treated as application of income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision but directed the AO to verify the depreciation claim.
The Tribunal held that the loan was borrowed for the expansion of the existing business of running a hospital. Therefore, the interest paid on the loan is a revenue expenditure and not capital in nature.
The Tribunal found that essential documents were missing, preventing it from verifying the depreciation claim. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled all other conditions for the Section 54 deduction. It was decided that a minor technical lapse of not depositing funds in the specific scheme account should not disentitle the assessee from the beneficial provision.
The Tribunal held that the property transfer was completed when the assessee entered into a sale agreement and paid the full consideration, acquiring possession. However, Section 50C could only be invoked against the original seller (Smt. N. Meena), not the assessee as the buyer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of Section 14A by restoring it to the AO for re-adjudication, following a coordinate bench decision. For Section 36(1)(viii) and 36(1)(viia)(c), the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision and held in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary paid to the driver was justified as no nexus was shown with earning income. However, the disallowance of interest on bank and RD loans required a fresh look to determine the nexus with interest earned.
The Tribunal found a dichotomy in the observations of the lower authorities regarding the interest disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the TPO for re-adjudication, granting the assessee liberty to produce necessary documents. The TPO was directed to provide an adequate opportunity for hearing and document submission.
The Tribunal held that the changes made by the corrigendum constituted a wholesale change of the assessee, not a curable defect. The assessment was therefore considered to have been made on the date of the corrigendum, which was beyond the statutory time limit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's balance sheet showed a closing cash balance of Rs. 5,59,608/-, which was sufficient to explain the investment in house construction. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the Tribunal ruled that parallel proceedings under Section 147 and Section 154 on the same issue should not be pursued.