Loading ITAT cases…
213 orders · Page 3 of 5
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim in the return of income, after furnishing all particulars, cannot be construed as concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It also held that the CIT(Appeals) should have considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that making a claim for set off of losses after furnishing all transaction details does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income, citing the Apex Court ruling in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed the binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) did not require any interference.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment for the second time on the same issue, beyond the four-year period, is bad in law. It was also noted that there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that while returns filed in response to Section 148 notices are valid, failure to pay tax on the returned income before filing an appeal before the CIT(A) leads to the non-admission of such appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal found that the facts regarding the timing of investments and loans were not adequately on record. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the person who allegedly advanced the money is the right person to confirm the transaction. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of rent paid, agreeing with the lower authorities that the transaction was an arrangement to bestow benefit upon an individual of the family, not the company.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may not have provided a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) was not justified in restricting the approval from AY 2016-17, as the assessee was seeking a renewal of its earlier approval. The approval ought to have been renewed from AY 2015-16.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the investigation report and recorded statements to the assessees and conduct a thorough investigation into the penny stock companies.
The Tribunal held that since the accrued interest was not yet payable to the assessee until the fixed deposit matured, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) had not properly examined the facts regarding the unsecured loans and the market rate of interest. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) direction to exclude foreign currency expenditure from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following a Special Bench decision. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the exemption claim for Unit II and verify MAT credit claims including surcharge and education cess.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim in the return of income, after furnishing all particulars, cannot be construed as concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It also held that the CIT(Appeals) should have considered the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the deposit of capital gains was made within the extended due date for filing the return of income. It further held that for claiming exemption under Section 54, it is sufficient to show investment of capital gains for construction, and completion of the building is not mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to pass a speaking order and did not properly consider the grounds of appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of additional evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the Adangal extract, crucial for proving the agricultural nature of the land, was filed for the first time before the Tribunal and not with the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the actual transfer of shares and receipt of full payment occurred on 31.12.2014, which falls in the financial year 2014-15, relevant to assessment year 2015-16. Therefore, the capital gain was not assessable in the year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim for set off of losses after furnishing all transaction details does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. A difference of opinion regarding the nature of transactions cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that an incorrect claim of deduction does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-Fund is a determinate trust with identifiable beneficiaries, and therefore, its entire income, including interest income, should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries, not the trust. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim in the return of income, even if unsubstantiated, does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Similarly, differences in computation under Section 14A do not automatically lead to penalty.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was unsustainable because the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) had expired by limitation as per Section 275(1). The dropping of the penalty, even if an 'unspeaking order', did not extend the limitation period for revision.
The Tribunal held that the Section 263 revision was barred by limitation because the issue of Section 14A disallowance was already considered in the original assessment order and was not part of the reassessment. The doctrine of merger, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, applies only to issues that were the subject of appeal, not those not considered in reassessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-Fund is a determinate trust with identifiable beneficiaries, and therefore, its entire income, including interest income, should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries, not the trust. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural lands in question were not capital assets as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. Therefore, no capital gains tax was leviable on their compulsory acquisition by the government.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural lands in question were not capital assets as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. Therefore, no capital gains tax was leviable on their compulsory acquisition by the government.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-Fund is a determinate trust with identifiable beneficiaries, and therefore, its entire income, including interest income, should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries, not the trust. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular. The assessee's cross objections were dismissed as not pressed or infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-Fund is a determinate trust with identifiable beneficiaries, and therefore, its entire income, including interest income, should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries, not the trust. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural lands in question were not capital assets as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. Therefore, no capital gains tax was leviable on their compulsory acquisition by the government.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C/153A were valid as returns were filed only after the notice. However, additions for excess interest income, appraiser fees, and salary expenses were deleted as they were based on presumptions or lacked sufficient evidence. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was held to be consequential.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C/153A were valid as returns were filed only after the notice. However, additions for excess interest income, appraiser fees, and salary expenses were deleted as they were based on presumptions or lacked sufficient evidence. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was held to be consequential.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A was valid. It also deleted the disallowance of land development expenditure. The change in accounting method from cash to mercantile for AY 2008-09 was accepted as bonafide.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A was valid. It also deleted the disallowance of land development expenditure. The change in accounting method from cash to mercantile for AY 2008-09 was accepted as bonafide.