Loading ITAT cases…
186 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it was initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The reassessment order was consequently quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had offered the CDM income to tax in earlier years, the subsequent reversal and claim for deduction should be allowed on the principle of equity and natural justice, even if the receipts were capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the AO and not made while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly accounted for the income and claimed the tax credit in AY 2014-15, as the tax credit certificates were received and the income was offered to tax in that year. The CIT(A)'s order allowing the entire credit was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and should not be adjusted while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the AO and not made while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and that adjustments for disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the AO and not made while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the AO and not made while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) by holding that once the payments were made within the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. This was in line with High Court decisions on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the revision under Section 263 was not justified. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A had already been decided in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Furthermore, no addition was made on account of the reverse merger in the subsequent assessment, indicating the original assessment was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had offered the CDM income to tax in earlier years, the subsequent reversal and claim for deduction should be allowed on the principle of equity and natural justice, even if the receipts were capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and not be made while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remitted back for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and should not be adjusted while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and should not be adjusted while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed four appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. For the fifth appeal, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed four appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. For the fifth appeal, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed four appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. For the fifth appeal, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed four appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. For the fifth appeal, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed four appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. For the fifth appeal, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the nexus between the expenses and the exempt income. It also noted the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and that the AO did not record the necessary satisfaction for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The assessee had filed the required audit report under Section 44AB before the due date, and failure to comply with procedural aspects like filing the report does not disentitle the assessee from claiming lower profits, with penalties being the consequence under Section 271B.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the ground related to the exemption claim. Both parties agreed that the matter needed to be restored.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the Revenue's submission and the assessee's agreement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds and interest-free advances from flat buyers. It was also noted that investments in group entities were for business purposes and out of commercial expediency, citing precedents.
The Tribunal held that the amounts in question were mere reimbursements of expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of its principal and not taxable income. Overwhelming evidence supported the assessee's claim, and there was no concealment of income.
The Tribunal held that the right acquired through share warrants constitutes a capital asset, and its extinguishment upon forfeiture qualifies as a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the loss on forfeiture is deductible as a short-term capital loss.
The Tribunal held that these expenses were necessary for the trust's activities and did not provide an enduring benefit to the trustee owner, as the trust was free to remove the constructions. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The disallowance of interest expenses was also examined in relation to diversion of funds.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, including the insertion of Explanation 2, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, these amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits by demonstrating withdrawals from bank accounts on earlier dates. The Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence that these withdrawals were used for other purposes.
The Tribunal found that there was a dispute regarding whether the provision was actually made for bad and doubtful debts in the books of accounts. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The disallowance of interest expenses was also examined in relation to diversion of funds.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, as the AO relied on materials already available and considered during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment notice and order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, including the insertion of Explanation 2, are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, these amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid the tax amount as per the scheme and submitted Form 5. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(iii) for debit balances in partner's capital accounts or loans and advances to group companies when used for business purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that certain items like share application money and advance sale consideration are not liabilities for computing net worth under Section 50B. Loans from directors not taken over by the buyer were also correctly excluded.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The issue was whether the property was received for inadequate consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments in group entities, and the borrowed funds were for specific business purposes. Therefore, no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had utilized the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was no longer maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was beyond the assessee's control due to departmental search proceedings and seizure of books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty was unwarranted.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench held the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) to be prospective. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the first appellate authority to verify the payment dates and re-adjudicate the issue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form 5 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the source of investment with sufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's computations for correct capital gains and to ascertain the eligibility for deduction under Section 54 based on the submitted documents regarding construction on another property.
The Tribunal held that the prior appellate order had attained finality and merged with the AO's order. Accepting the assessee's argument would mean the appellate relief could not be given effect to, leading to a worse position for the assessee.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee is to be given a meaningful opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to provide another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.