Loading ITAT cases…
87 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the losses. The overall loss remained the same, and the original return had claimed the business loss within the due date, making the assessee eligible for carry forward.
The Tribunal held that the predominant objective of the assessee's activities is crucial in determining eligibility for charitable status. Since the assessee's primary objective was charitable and the collection of fees was to meet expenditure rather than profit, it remained eligible for exemption under Section 11/12.
The Tribunal held that the predominant objective of the assessee's activities is crucial in determining eligibility for charitable status. Since the assessee's primary objective was charitable and the collection of fees was to meet expenditure rather than profit, it remained eligible for exemption under Section 11/12.
The Tribunal held that the facts emanating from the return of income needed verification regarding the claim under Section 112. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the facts emanating from the return of income needed verification regarding the claim under Section 112. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the assessee's negligence and absence, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the predominant objective of the assessee's activities is crucial in determining eligibility for charitable status. Since the assessee's primary objective was charitable and the collection of fees was to meet expenditure rather than profit, it remained eligible for exemption under Section 11/12.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's reopening of the assessment, finding no infirmity in the procedure followed. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds related to the addition made on account of long-term capital gains, implying it agreed with the AO's valuation.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of disallowance of expenditure incurred towards oil purchase to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was to allow the AO to re-examine the matter in light of the assessee's arguments, including the applicability of Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA and relevant case laws.
The Tribunal held that the provisions for estimated losses on contracts and for various expenses were unascertained liabilities and thus not allowable as deductions. The ground related to Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were revenue in nature and incurred for the assessee's business purposes. The assessee demonstrated it lacked its own permanent establishment and utilized M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd.'s network, and the AO had not questioned the genuineness of the expenses.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on non-compete fees is allowable. It also directed to restrict the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income to 2% of the exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the appeal had become infructuous due to the subsequent filing of separate appeals for each assessment year. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that if letting out property is the main business of the assessee, the rental income should be treated as business income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's main object was to construct and lease out properties, making it a business activity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the Section 10A deduction without calling for a remand report and giving the AO an opportunity to examine the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the interest income from the joint bank account was correctly treated as income from other sources, as was the interest received on the compromise amount. The assessee's contention that the interest on the compromise amount was part of the sale consideration was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's claim for accumulation of income under Section 11(2) as Form 10 was made available during appellate proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that a Section 143(1) intimation is not a regular assessment and adjustments beyond the explanation are not permissible.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was permitted to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was permitted to approach the Tribunal again if any injustice occurred during the settlement.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of disallowance of expenditure incurred towards oil purchase to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was to allow the AO to re-examine the matter in light of the assessee's arguments, including the applicability of Article 26(3) of the India-USA DTAA and relevant case laws.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on non-compete fees is allowable. It also directed to restrict the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income to 2% of the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexation from April 1, 1981, for the inherited property, as per Section 49. Regarding the cost of improvement, the Tribunal found that the existence of the building constructed in 1996 was undisputed, and therefore, the Assessing Officer should have allowed the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee for Rs. 9,57,000 incurred in 1996. On the issue of Section 54 exemption, the Tribunal noted that while the claim was not made in the original return, the assessee had satisfied the conditions under Section 54(1) by reinvesting the sale consideration for a new asset. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs. CIT and the ITAT, Chennai Benches in R.K.P Elayarajan Vs. DCIT, holding that non-compliance with the procedural requirement of Section 54(2) does not disentitle the assessee to the exemption if the mandatory requirements of Section 54(1) are met within the prescribed time. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the full exemption claimed under Section 54. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, as the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the department had no objection, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued relevant forms. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that denial of exemption should only be to the extent of income violating Section 13(1)(d) and not a total denial of exemption under Section 11. This was based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment upheld by the Supreme Court.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had paid their dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in maintaining day-to-day records for expenses like sand, gravel, and wages. It reduced the disallowance from 5% to 3% of the total expenses.
The Tribunal held that Section 271B is not attracted in a case where no accounts have been maintained, and instead, recourse under Section 271A can be taken. Following the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT v. Bisuali Tractors, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had availed the VSVS scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the VSVS application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 for AY 2011-12 was an error, as the issue of honorarium was decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years. However, the issue of amounts parked with a sister concern was dismissed for AY 2011-12 due to lack of contemporaneous material.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this fact. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle the disputes.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had applied for the scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the application was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle the disputes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' to settle the disputes.