Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of business is deductible in the year of payment, even if the borrowed funds were used for acquiring stock-in-trade, which is treated as a current asset. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the rental income should be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property'. The AO failed to provide evidence that the assessee's main object was to develop and let out properties as a systematic business activity.
The Tribunal held that the excess consideration paid for the amalgamation represented intangible assets like brand name and goodwill, which are eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the excess consideration paid for the amalgamation represented intangible assets like brand name and goodwill, which are eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs or less should not be filed by the Revenue and this circular is applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee has an obligation to appear, the CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on merits based on available material, even in the absence of the assessee. The CIT(A) failed to discuss the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that although part of the discount related to sales in an earlier financial year, it accrued in the current year when the assessee received the refund of special additional duty. Therefore, the discount was allowable as an expenditure in the current assessment year.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the exemption claim under Section 54F for Rs. 1,41,92,934/- which was not supported by bills and vouchers, as genuine expenditure in construction cannot be rejected solely for lack of bills. The Tribunal also disagreed with the AO's reasoning for disallowing Rs. 1,08,57,553/- incurred before the sale of the original asset, citing the principle established in C. Aryama Sundaram Vs. CIT, which allows construction to commence before the sale date, provided it is completed within three years. Regarding Section 50C, the Tribunal held that the deeming fiction for computing sale consideration under Section 50C cannot be extended to Section 54F for calculating exemption, as it would be impossible for an assessee to reinvest an amount exceeding the actual sale consideration received. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo consideration, directing the AO to recompute the capital gain by adopting the market value determined by the DVO and considering the amount invested for construction in light of the Tribunal's directions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence, including bank statements of the creditors showing withdrawals and deposits, to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest on loans borrowed from banks is deductible on a payment basis in the year it is actually paid, as per Section 43B(e). The requirement to provide for interest in the books of account for the previous year was not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 43B.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce the required documents. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce the required documents. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee intended to utilize the Direct Taxes ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ to settle the dispute. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to recall if the scheme fails.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the exemption claim under Section 54F for Rs. 1,41,92,934/- which was not supported by bills and vouchers, as genuine expenditure in construction cannot be rejected solely for lack of bills. The Tribunal also disagreed with the AO's reasoning for disallowing Rs. 1,08,57,553/- incurred before the sale of the original asset, citing the principle established in C. Aryama Sundaram Vs. CIT, which allows construction to commence before the sale date, provided it is completed within three years. Regarding Section 50C, the Tribunal held that the deeming fiction for computing sale consideration under Section 50C cannot be extended to Section 54F for calculating exemption, as it would be impossible for an assessee to reinvest an amount exceeding the actual sale consideration received. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo consideration, directing the AO to recompute the capital gain by adopting the market value determined by the DVO and considering the amount invested for construction in light of the Tribunal's directions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity and the CIT(A) concluded the order ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present her case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's request, decided to grant one more opportunity. The orders of the AO were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A).
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 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a nexus between maintaining the guest house and its business activities. Consequently, depreciation on the guest house and set-off of brought forward depreciation were disallowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's request, decided to grant one more opportunity. The orders of the AO were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's request, decided to grant one more opportunity. The orders of the AO were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A).
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn, considering the assessee's application and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority was rejected.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. It also held that such disallowance cannot be added while computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn, considering the assessee's application and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the application before the Designated Authority was rejected.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had availed the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal held that while the law does not mandate separate books, the assessee must be able to identify expenditure for investment activity from composite books. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of Section 14A disallowance and Section 115JB computation.
The Tribunal held that the hire charges paid for computer systems were not excessive when compared to market rates, as third-party providers charged more. However, the consultancy charges paid to the Director were upheld as partly disallowable due to lack of sufficient evidence to justify the full payment.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the same issue had been set aside and remitted back to the AO. Therefore, the penalty proceedings could not survive and were also remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that for hire charges, the assessee's payments were not excessive as comparable third-party rates were higher. For consultancy charges, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the payments, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, as the assessee opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and the department issued Form 3, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was advised to approach the Tribunal if any injustice occurred during the settlement process.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority had issued Form No.5. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority had issued Form No.5. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond four years without establishing a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Reopening on a presumptive basis after a scrutiny assessment was also deemed improper.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case, held that the rental income derived from sub-leasing the property is to be treated as business income. The AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, held that the rental income derived from sub-leasing the property was to be treated as business income. The AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case, held that the rental income derived from sub-leasing the property is to be treated as business income. The AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without proper basis, as the assessee maintained audited books of accounts and explained the cash balance through cash sales and loans. The CIT(A) also failed to provide reasons for not deleting the entire addition.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without proper basis, as the assessee maintained audited books of accounts and explained the cash balance through cash sales and loans. The CIT(A) also failed to provide reasons for not deleting the entire addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits. Therefore, to provide an opportunity to the assessee, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed its own decision for AY 2011-12 and held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 10AA. Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of Hanon Climate Systems India Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable due to excessive related party transactions. However, the ground related to brought forward business losses was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and held that the delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if made before the due date of filing the return, is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form 5 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, and the Department had accepted the application. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.