Loading ITAT cases…
225 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that State PWD rates should be applied for construction in a rural area, not CPWD rates applicable to metropolitan cities, upholding the CIT(A)'s revision of construction cost. However, the issue of additional relief of ₹.2 crores was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer allowed the provision for service commission in earlier years after remand from the ITAT, the same should be allowed for the current year after verification, following the Tribunal's earlier decision.
The Tribunal found that the loan debtors' confirmation regarding cash payments was unclear and that the transactions might have been outside the books. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court judgments on the retrospective applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). It decided to follow the Delhi High Court's view that the proviso is retrospective and remanded the case to verify if the recipient paid taxes.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal considered the submission and noted that as the tax effect was below the specified limit, the appeal could not survive. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the cost of fixtures and furniture should be treated as part of the cost of acquisition of the asset. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed inappropriate without proper inquiry into the confirmation letters provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 12A(2), though introduced later, has retrospective effect. Therefore, the assessee should be granted the benefit of registration under Section 12AA for the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal noted conflicting High Court judgments on the retrospective applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). It decided to follow the Delhi High Court's view that the proviso is retrospective and remanded the case to verify if the recipient paid taxes.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below ₹20 lakhs. Following this circular, the Tribunal held that the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) was disputed based on the shareholding pattern and a relevant Supreme Court decision was not considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the difference was not satisfactory, especially regarding TDS being issued in their name for income not pertaining to them. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by furnishing PAN, addresses, and in some cases, the return of income of the creditors. The disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Section 14A, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered, following a Special Bench decision. Regarding additional depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Section 14A, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered, following a Special Bench decision. Regarding additional depreciation, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on interest payments made to its members. This decision was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling which addressed the same substantial question of law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not obliged to deduct tax at source on interest payments made to its members. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling on a similar issue.
The Tribunal held that if TDS is paid before the due date of filing the return, the deduction for the expenditure is permissible in the previous year in which the tax was paid to the government account. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the issue of the rate of interest for disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and adjudication, applying the net interest payable on packing credit.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of exemption eligibility for micro finance activities back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order. It also allowed the Revenue's ground regarding violation of foreign contribution rules for administrative expenses.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement under Section 200A. The impugned intimation levying this fee was set aside, and the fee was deleted, with a clarification that a separate order could be passed if the limitation period had not expired.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement under Section 200A. The impugned intimation levying this fee was set aside, and the fee was deleted, with a clarification that a separate order could be passed if the limitation period had not expired.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement under Section 200A. The impugned intimation levying this fee was set aside, and the fee was deleted, with a clarification that a separate order could be passed if the limitation period had not expired.
The Tribunal held that the revision under Section 263 was based on a change of opinion, which is not permissible. Granting a statutory deduction, as provided by the Act, cannot be considered prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the issue of the rate of interest for disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and adjudication, applying the net interest payable on packing credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an opportunity for cross-examination of the evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of exemption eligibility for micro finance activities back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order. It also allowed the Revenue's ground regarding violation of foreign contribution rules for administrative expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular instructing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement under Section 200A. The impugned intimation levying this fee was set aside, and the fee was deleted, with a clarification that a separate order could be passed if the limitation period had not expired.
The Tribunal held that for computing deduction under Section 10AA, the numerator and denominator must be based on the same factors. If foreign currency expenditure is reduced from export turnover, it must also be reduced from total turnover to correctly determine profit.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12, since no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found, the Assessing Officer could not initiate proceedings under Section 153A. The appeals for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed on account of low tax effect.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to Section 10AA as not pressed. It directed the exclusion of insurance and telecommunication expenses from total turnover, aligning with CBDT circulars. The disallowance of employee severance payments was upheld as only actual expenditure is allowable, not provisions.
The Tribunal held that possession of the property had passed to the developer in assessment year 2007-08, fulfilling the conditions of Section 2(47)(v). Therefore, capital gains were taxable in assessment year 2007-08 and not in assessment year 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to re-appreciate the material as directed and that not all additions automatically result in penalty. In the absence of material showing concealment or inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12, since no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found, the Assessing Officer could not initiate proceedings under Section 153A. The appeals for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed on account of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that mere claims of expenditure or income, even if disallowed during assessment, do not automatically constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Regarding penalty under Section 271AAB, it was held that an offer of additional income during a search, without any incriminating material found, does not qualify as 'undisclosed income' for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that mere claims of expenditure or income, even if disallowed during assessment, do not automatically constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Regarding penalty under Section 271AAB, it was held that an offer of additional income during a search, without any incriminating material found, does not qualify as 'undisclosed income' for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12, since no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found, the Assessing Officer could not initiate proceedings under Section 153A. The appeals for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed on account of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12, since no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found, the Assessing Officer could not initiate proceedings under Section 153A. The appeals for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed on account of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented from depositing the balance amount in the Capital Gains Account as the Department seized the funds before the due date. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F was valid despite not specifically mentioning the section in the return, as it was a beneficial provision.
The Tribunal held that mere claims of expenditure or income, even if disallowed during assessment, do not automatically constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Regarding penalty under Section 271AAB, it was held that an offer of additional income during a search, without any incriminating material found, does not qualify as 'undisclosed income' for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has accounted for the entire interest income in their books according to their regular accounting method, additions based solely on Form 26AS, which might reflect income in a different assessment year, would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the requirements of Section 54F by investing the sale proceeds in the purchase of a flat under construction. Completion of construction or occupation is not essential for claiming the deduction.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹20 lakhs. The Tribunal held this circular to be binding on the Revenue.
The tribunal held that the CBDT circular instructing officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is binding. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The tribunal held that the CBDT circular instructing officers to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs is binding. Therefore, the Revenue could not proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the variation between the assessee's declared value and the DVO's valuation was less than 10%. Therefore, no addition was liable to be made, and the capital gains should be computed based on the assessee's declared value.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when the assessee has not earned any dividend income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.