Loading ITAT cases…
188 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the guideline values fixed by registering authorities for stamp duty purposes cannot be applied for determining the market value under Chapter XX-C of the Act, as these are limited only for payment of stamp duty. The Tribunal also noted that principles for valuation under the Wealth-tax Act or other taxation laws differ from those applicable to acquisition proceedings, which are akin to acquisition proceedings. Citing the jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. J.Chelladurai, which suggested averaging the values given by the assessee and the assessing officer to fix the market value, the Tribunal decided to adopt a value that meets the ends of justice. Considering the totality of facts and assertions, the Tribunal determined the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 to be ₹3,50,000/- per ground. This value is an average between the assessee's claim of not less than ₹5 lakhs per ground and the CIT(A)'s adopted value of ₹50,000/- per ground. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt this revised value. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that interest income on NPAs should be recognized on the actual receipt basis, not accrual basis, following High Court and Supreme Court decisions. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, instructing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs officers to withdraw appeals pending before the ITAT where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. The Tribunal held this circular to be binding on the department.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not adequately examine the use of the loan for property acquisition. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the facts and the allowability of interest as a cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not considered the relevant proviso to Section 80HHC and a Gujarat High Court decision. The assessee also sought an opportunity to present correct computations for a deduction claim.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to appear but, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de-novo consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were concluded before the search, and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was already available with the return of income, there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no assessment under Section 153A/153C could be made.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's claim of agricultural income from land sale was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were concluded before the search, and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was already available with the return of income, there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no assessment under Section 153A/153C could be made.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the share transactions, including the mode of delivery and confirmation dates. The CIT(Appeals) had rightly confirmed the disallowance based on information about bogus capital gains.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim of bad debts in the return of income, after furnishing all details, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income, following the Apex Court's decision in Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The tribunal held that the transfer of registration is not necessary for claiming depreciation on a motor vehicle, provided the vehicle was delivered and used by the assessee. Regarding the hire charges, the tribunal found that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim due to lack of vouchers, while the assessee claimed they were available.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the share transactions, including the mode of delivery and confirmation dates. The CIT(Appeals) had rightly confirmed the disallowance based on information about bogus capital gains.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹5,00,000/- in the hands of Smt. L. Katheeja and ₹2,80,000/- in the hands of Shri L.T. Ilyas, totaling ₹7,80,000/-, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these amounts.
The Tribunal held that capital gains arising from the sale of property obtained by minors from their grandparents are includible in the income of the assessee under Section 64(1A). However, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify if the sale proceeds were deposited in the specified Capital Gains Account for Section 54F exemption.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, which allowed additional depreciation for power generation business, were applicable from AY 2013-14. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the assessment year 2012-13.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and furnish evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal, but then held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection for lack of evidence regarding the modern kitchen.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) of the Income Tax Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, for processing TDS statements prior to this date, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to levy such fees.
The Tribunal held that the materials filed before the CIT(Appeals) needed to be examined by the Assessing Officer as the original authority. Both lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains exemption could not be denied without providing the investigation report to the assessee. It emphasized the need for thorough investigation to establish the penny stock nature of the company and the role of authorities in its registration and listing.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were concluded before the search, and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was already available with the return of income, there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no assessment under Section 153A/153C could be made.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were concluded before the search, and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was already available with the return of income, there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no assessment under Section 153A/153C could be made.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was based on generalized allegations without specific reference to the assessee's transactions. Crucially, the investigation report and statement relied upon were not furnished to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) would only arise if the cash payment was claimed as expenditure. Since the assessee claimed it was not claimed, this needed verification. The confirmation for the other amount also required verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was based on generalized allegations without specific reference to the assessee's transactions. Crucially, the investigation report and recorded statements were not furnished to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not furnish the information received from the Investigation Wing to the assessee and did not establish the assessee's role in the company's promotion or share price inflation. Therefore, the matter required re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the initial statement of the assessee, offering the amount as capital gain for vacating premises, should be taken as true. Even if considered an advance for marble sale, it cannot be treated as income until the sale is concluded, and only the profit element would be taxable.
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. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the legal heirs of the deceased assessee were not brought on record. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the First Appellate Authority to implead all legal heirs and decide the appeal on merits after providing them with an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the sale value alone cannot be the basis for estimating the percentage of project completion. Since the Assessing Officer accepted the declared percentage for other years, there was no reason to dispute it for the current year.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of receiving money from a friend for temporary custody was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter needed reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the documents were now available and that the matter needed re-examination. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the loss arising from foreign exchange fluctuation on a loan, even if initially taken for acquiring a business, is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) if it's for revenue considerations like saving interest costs. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were concluded before the search, and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was already available with the return of income, there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no assessment under Section 153A/153C could be made.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were concluded before the search, and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was already available with the return of income, there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no assessment under Section 153A/153C could be made.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were concluded before the search, and the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer was already available with the return of income, there was no incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no assessment under Section 153A/153C could be made.