Loading ITAT cases…
298 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly invoked Section 13(1)(c) as the unrelated vouchers from the transport business were mistakenly mixed with the trust's vouchers. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to tax only the extent of violation at the maximum marginal rate, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that since technology was not made available to the assessee, tax deduction under Section 195 was not required as per the India-Singapore DTAA. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer had previously issued certificates for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the necessary documents and an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the investment in Plot No. 31 is not eligible for exemption under Section 54F. The reasoning was that land appurtenant must be an indivisible part of the building, used for its enjoyment and not for any other use. Plot No. 31, being vacant land, could not be considered an indivisible part of the building constructed on Plot No. 32, nor was it necessary for the enjoyment of that property. The building on Plot No. 32 could be enjoyed independently. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order on this issue was upheld, and the assessee's grounds failed. Regarding the restriction of exemption to one unit, the Tribunal found that the basic facts were not properly examined and therefore remitted this issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to furnish all supporting materials, and the AO was to conduct an enquiry, provide an opportunity to the assessee, and pass an order accordingly. The issue of whether the construction constituted one or multiple residential units was left undecided by the Tribunal and remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since technology was not made available to the assessee, tax deduction under Section 195 was not required, especially in light of the India-Singapore DTAA. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had previously issued certificates for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which instructs to withdraw appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to challenge the JCIT's concurrent jurisdiction within the stipulated time, thus dismissing the technical ground. Regarding Section 14A, the tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the specific ground raised by the assessee, leading to a remand.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries, which prejudiced their case. Therefore, the matter needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that investments in subsidiary companies are subject to Section 14A, and the CIT(Appeals) was incorrect in excluding them. However, disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is only applicable to investments that have yielded exempted income.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to challenge the JCIT's concurrent jurisdiction within the stipulated time, thus dismissing the technical ground. Regarding Section 14A, the tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the specific ground raised by the assessee, leading to a remand.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and had only confirmed the assessment order without discussion. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that CPWD rates are not applicable for construction cost valuation in rural areas like Tuticorin, and PWD rates should be considered. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify if PWD rates were used by the valuer and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to ₹50 lakhs and instructed withdrawal of appeals below this limit, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to challenge the JCIT's concurrent jurisdiction within the stipulated time, thus dismissing the technical ground. Regarding Section 14A, the tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the specific ground raised by the assessee, leading to a remand.
The Tribunal held that while higher depreciation can be claimed based on technological evolution, the assessee failed to provide evidence of a technological report to the authorities. Therefore, the matter needs re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the assessment was based on investigation reports without providing them to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned, citing jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions. For Section 115JB, the matter was remitted to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. It remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing the AO to provide all adverse material to the assessee and allow them to substantiate their claim with proper evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and there was no proof of service of notice on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the classification of lands as wet and dry by the Revenue Department was not properly examined. The sale of lands as plots also required further investigation.
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) misinterpreted the CBDT circular and should have disposed of the appeal on its merits, as per Section 251 of the Income-tax Act. Dismissing appeals based on tax amount instead of merit increases litigation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was made primarily based on investigation reports without providing the assessee a fair opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since technology was not made available to the assessee, tax deduction under Section 195 was not required as per the India-Singapore DTAA. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had previously issued certificates for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 54 was not permissible after the assessment for the relevant year was completed. The assessee had not shown any intention to claim the deduction at the time of filing the return or by depositing sale consideration in a capital gains scheme.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by remitting issues of pre-operative expenses and depreciation disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide evidence linking the written-off loans and advances to the business of selling bullet-proof jackets and to show that income from this business was offered for taxation in earlier years.
The Tribunal allowed 50% of the disallowed expenses, considering the assessee's senior position, the fact that the employer had allowed these deductions in Form 16, and the inability to produce original bills due to the passage of time. The remaining 50% of the disallowance was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the nature of the land was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by remitting issues of pre-operative expenses and depreciation disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be invoked when investments and their income are not part of the books of account maintained for professional activity, and no expenditure related to such investments was claimed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of the exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) to meet the ends of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue on merits after giving the assessee one more opportunity of being heard and considering the submitted evidence.
The Tribunal held that the savings to the assessee by captive consumption should be based on the cost it would have incurred to purchase power from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, not the price the Board would pay for wind power. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute deductions using the higher rate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, both appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an estimate basis. However, for other additions related to unaccounted cash transactions and non-compliance with TDS provisions, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, both appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an estimate basis. However, for other additions related to unaccounted cash transactions and non-compliance with TDS provisions, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that provisions made for payment towards an approved gratuity fund are allowable deductions under Section 40A(7)(b) of the Act. It further held that Section 40A(7)(b) has an overriding effect over Section 43B.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and failed to file necessary documents. However, for ends of natural justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after considering the details to be filed by the assessee.