Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeals ex-parte due to non-appearance, the disposal should have been on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were reasonable and bonafide. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay to consider the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have kept the appeal pending until a related writ petition before the High Court was decided, as the assessee's reason for deferral appeared bonafide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to allow the assessee a further opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn after the assessee confirmed availing the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the department had no objection. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeals on technical grounds without discussing the issues on merits. Therefore, one more opportunity of hearing should be given to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeals ex-parte due to non-appearance, the disposal should have been on merits. Since the CIT(A) disposed of the appeals on technical grounds without discussing the issues, the Tribunal set aside the orders.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeals ex-parte due to non-appearance, the disposal should have been on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeals ex-parte due to non-appearance, the disposal should have been on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without discussing the merits. Since the assessee was not given an opportunity to present its case on merits, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was barred by limitation. This was because the issue of Section 80IA deduction was not part of the reassessment proceedings, and the limitation period should be reckoned from the original assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the share of sale consideration paid to the father for relinquishing his life interest should be deducted. It also ruled that the period of holding by the previous owner (grandfather) should be considered for indexation and long-term capital gains, allowing deductions under sections 54 and 54EC.
The Tribunal held that the share of sale consideration paid to the father for relinquishing his life interest should be deducted. It also ruled that the period of holding by the previous owner (grandfather) should be considered for indexation and long-term capital gains, allowing deductions under sections 54 and 54EC.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be recomputed by considering only those investments that yielded exempt income. For the capital gains issue, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of the land and its use for agricultural purposes by examining complete documentary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assignment fee was correctly taxed in AY 2009-10 and that the WTGs were commissioned and put to use before the cut-off date for claiming full depreciation.
The Tribunal held that routine expenses incurred for maintaining corporate status cannot be disallowed solely due to lack of revenue from operations. However, processing charges related to lending activity were upheld as per the CIT(A)'s apportionment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide consistent explanations and supporting evidence for the cash deposits. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F for reinvestment in both properties, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. For the cost of acquisition, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by fixing a revised value.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the source of funds for investments and to consider only investments yielding exempt income. For the second issue, the Tribunal directed deletion of the addition as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction. The sponsorship fee was held to be personal and not for business purposes.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his claims. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify the source of funds for investments and to consider only investments yielding exempt income. For the second issue, the Tribunal directed deletion of the addition as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction. The sponsorship fee was held to be personal and not for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the trademark assignment agreement was not a reason to disallow depreciation, as intangible assets like trademarks are eligible for depreciation. It also held that the Assessing Officer cannot question the necessity of business expenditure like advertisement and branding.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the penalty on the sundary credit for which the assessee could not produce confirmation. The assessee's inability to provide confirmation led to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F for reinvestment in both properties, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. For the cost of acquisition, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by fixing a revised value.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal deleted the additions of Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000. The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that the cash was from the sale of property and from own cash on hand, supported by bank statements and the fact that the assessee was a salaried employee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Considering this, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for invoking Section 14A was not required as the assessee did not make a suo-motto disallowance. Direct expenses relatable to exempt income were rightly disallowed. The issue of interest expenditure disallowance was restored to the AO for verification of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that amounts transferred to reserve funds are appropriations of profit and not deductible. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A when no exempt income was earned. Disallowance of commission payment was partly upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in treating the sale consideration as unexplained cash credit solely based on the company's financials and the broker being on a watchlist. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent activity.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted by the appellate authority, then the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the full consideration paid for the property, as evidenced by the sale agreement and the seller's confirmation, should be considered for Section 54F exemption, not just the amount in the registered sale deed. The Tribunal also allowed the full cost of improvement, finding no valid reason to reject the assessee's own contribution.
The Tribunal held that while the initial rectification regarding setting off business loss against salary was correct, the subsequent set-off against long-term capital gains was not in the most beneficial order. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the total income by setting off the business loss against house property income first, then long-term capital gains, and finally income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that amounts transferred to reserve funds are appropriations of profit and not deductible. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A when no exempt income was earned. Disallowance of commission payment was partly upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for invoking Section 14A was not required as the assessee did not make a suo-motto disallowance. Direct expenses relatable to exempt income were rightly disallowed. The issue of interest expenditure disallowance was restored to the AO for verification of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an employee's statement without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously accepted this legal position for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an employee's statement without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had previously accepted this legal position for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in rejecting the sale consideration adopted by the assessee as per the registered sale deed, especially since the property was under litigation and sold as a distress sale. The Tribunal found no justification for the DVO's 20% reduction.
The Tribunal held that the deeming provisions of Section 27(1) of the Income Tax Act, which are applicable for computing the annual value of property, cannot be superimposed on Section 54F, which is an independent provision for granting capital gains exemption. Therefore, the assessee is considered not to be the owner of the settled properties for the purpose of Section 54F.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that payments made by the assessee company to a sister concern for job work, adjusted against receivables, were commercial transactions and not loans/advances attracting Section 2(22)(e). It also held that belated payment of employee's PF & ESI contributions, if deposited before the due date of filing the return, is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the addition for carpenter commission should be restricted to ₹.3,50,000/- and the addition for car usage should be restricted to ₹.50,000/-, deeming these amounts sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in treating the sale consideration as unexplained cash credit solely based on the company's financials and the broker being on a watchlist. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent activity.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to utilize the Vivas se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted by the appellate authority, then the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted by the appellate authority, then the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was also informed that they could approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred regarding the scheme settlement.