Loading ITAT cases…
107 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that claiming interest income as exempt without any valid reason, after having offered it for taxation in the original return, constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty notice was also found to be valid, and the assessee's plea of mere omission or negligence was rejected.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal held that belated remittance of employee's EPF contribution, if made before the return filing due date, is allowable as a deduction. For lease rent, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine exemption status, and for NBFC interest, the assessee was directed to provide payee tax declaration certificates.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department's issuance of Form 3. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the VSVS application is rejected.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be vague and lacking in detailed discussion of the facts. It noted discrepancies in payment dates and possession dates for the new property. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh, detailed examination.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had properly examined the issue of agricultural land, considering all relevant documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the revision order under Section 263 was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied if the sale consideration is used for purchasing/constructing a new asset on or before the extended due date of furnishing the return of income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had reinvested the entire sale consideration and completed construction within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of prior period expenses, finding that the liability was crystallized in the current year. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation on guest house assets based on their functional classification as per IT Rules.
The Tribunal, following a similar decision in a co-owner's case, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to verify details and ascertain the date of sale consideration receipt and possession for deciding the capital gains issue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the legal issue regarding reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12 and confirmed additions without detailed consideration for both years. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal issue regarding reopening of assessment and other grounds on merits. Therefore, the appellate orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the commission payments were genuine, accounted for, and related to business activity. It found no bar to paying relatives as long as the payment commensurate with services rendered, reversing the partial disallowance made by the CIT(A).
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the tribunal if any injustice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunities to represent its case. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was directed to provide another opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). To meet the ends of natural justice, the appellate order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was decided against the revenue, the consequential penalty proceedings could not stand. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue of impairment loss as additional evidence and grounds were filed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal under the VSVS scheme and the Department has issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. as a comparable, finding that allegations of wrongdoing did not impact its financial results for the relevant assessment year. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of including Onward Technologies Ltd. back to the TPO for reconsideration.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the department has accepted their applications. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they have opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was allowed to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice arose from the Vivad-se-Vishwas settlement.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the AO and CIT(A) but submitted a voluminous paper-book before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and directed the CIT(A) to condone it. The CIT(A) was further instructed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the Department had no objection. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal found that while the entire difference might not be suppressed sales, the addition should be restricted. Therefore, the addition was reduced to ₹.5,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee proves availability of own funds for investments yielding exempt income, no disallowance can be made towards interest expenses. The Assessing Officer had not considered the assessee's plea of sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal held that the release from reserves was a notional entry and should not be added back for book profit computation. It also upheld the disallowance of payments for vastu consultancy and depreciation on consultant fees, citing previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the release from reserves was a notional entry and should not be added back for book profit computation. It also upheld the disallowance of payments for vastu consultancy and depreciation on consultant fees, citing previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D was valid, rejecting the assessee's argument regarding the lack of explicit written satisfaction. The issue of interest on TDS was set aside to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The additional ground regarding deduction for education cess was admitted and set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had concealed income by not disclosing investments and failing to file returns. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld, as the assessee's actions constituted concealment of particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act applies retrospectively. The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to allow the expenditure to the extent recipients offered it in their returns.
The Tribunal held that the release from reserves was a notional entry and should not be added back for book profit computation. It also upheld the disallowance of payments for vastu consultancy and depreciation on consultant fees, citing previous decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal since the dispute was settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any injustice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without considering the assessee's claim for reference to the valuation cell under Section 50C(2) and ignoring the High Court's decision on mandatory reference. The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A)'s contradictory findings.
The tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department has issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had concealed income by not disclosing investments and failing to file returns. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was upheld, as the assessee's actions constituted concealment of particulars of income.
The ITAT held that the Principal CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 for certain issues. Specifically, the issue of premium on redemption of debentures was already decided by the CIT(A), and the issue of investments was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that when income is assessed under 'income from other sources', relevant expenditure, including depreciation on assets and AMC charges, should be allowed under Section 57. It remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify facts and allow proportionate deductions.
The Tribunal held that the release from reserves was a notional entry and should not be added back for book profit computation. It also upheld the disallowance of payments for vastu consultancy and depreciation on consultant fees, citing previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT passed the revision order in a hurry without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Pr.CIT.
The Tribunal held that while the source of cash deposits was out of contract receipts, the assessee had not declared income. Therefore, a reasonable profit needed to be estimated on the remaining unexplained cash deposits.