Loading ITAT cases…
241 orders · Page 5 of 5
The tribunal held that payments to the managing director were adjustments to earlier advances and not disallowable under Section 40A(3). Routine building maintenance on a leased property was deemed revenue expenditure. For other disallowed expenses, a 10% disallowance was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for evicting encroachers was for business purposes and should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify that the expenditure was not claimed by the purchaser (SVC).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to meet the conditions for relaxation under Section 271AAA(2) as the admitted undisclosed income was not offered for tax in the return. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271AAA was rightly confirmed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing the additions for unredeemed articles by granting telescoping benefits in subsequent years and directing verification of loans from family members. Disallowance of Deepavali expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Board approval, though granted later, related back to the initial approval date, entitling the assessee to the deduction for AY 2006-07 and 2008-09. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the extension of time for receiving export proceeds was deemed granted as no rejection was communicated, allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Board approval, though granted later, related back to the initial approval date, entitling the assessee to the deduction for AY 2006-07 and 2008-09. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the extension of time for receiving export proceeds was deemed granted as no rejection was communicated, allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the returned income, filed before the notice u/s 153A, was accepted by the revenue. Furthermore, no show-cause notice for penalty u/s 271AAB was issued, making the proceedings bad-in-law.
The tribunal held that payments to the managing director were adjustments to earlier advances and not disallowable under Section 40A(3). Routine building maintenance on a leased property was deemed revenue expenditure. For other disallowed expenses, a 10% disallowance was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that Section 144C of the Income Tax Act is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2007-08. Consequently, the final assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the returned income, filed before the notice u/s 153A, was accepted by the revenue. Furthermore, no show-cause notice for penalty u/s 271AAB was issued, making the proceedings bad-in-law.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 2(22)(e) should be made in the hands of the recipient, not the assessee. Since the recipient was not assessed and the payment was for a lease, the assessee was not liable for TDS, and thus no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted.
The Tribunal directed the CIT to specify what further documents are required from the assessee to substantiate its claim for registration in earlier years. The assessee is to provide these documents, and the CIT will then decide on the registration application.
The Tribunal held that the Board approval, though granted later, related back to the initial approval date, entitling the assessee to the deduction for AY 2006-07 and 2008-09. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the extension of time for receiving export proceeds was deemed granted as no rejection was communicated, allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee consistently followed accepted accounting principles and Section 145A in valuing its closing stock. The differing valuations for local and imported units were justified due to price variations and quality differences.
The Tribunal held that lease payments made by the lessee are allowable as revenue expenditure. Ownership of the leased assets remained with the lessor, entitling only the lessor to claim depreciation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide belief and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the facts and the transaction in detail, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revision order was reversed.
The Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had already quashed the assessments under Section 153A due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the revision orders passed under Section 263 became inoperative.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department had issued Form 5. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the Service Tax liability arises on a receipt basis as per Service Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to the extent the liability had actually arisen at year-end.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form No. 5 for settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking and ex-parte order without properly adjudicating the issue of warranty provision and without serving notice on the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the AO had erroneously included closing bank balances in the addition for closing stock. The AO was directed to exclude this amount and confirm the addition for closing stock at Rs. 3,82,933/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme before the revision notice was issued. Since the scheme's order is conclusive and final, the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained without any incriminating material, especially when the assessment was unabated. The assessee had discharged their onus by providing evidence, shifting the burden to the Assessing Officer, who failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the classification of the land as agricultural was undisputed. The key dispute was the date of inclusion of the village within Chennai Corporation limits, which determined if it was a capital asset. This factual aspect needed verification.
The Tribunal held that despite Section 150(1) allowing reopening based on directions, Section 150(2) bars such reopening if the limitation period under Section 149 had expired. Therefore, the reopening was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that extrapolating a two-month profit margin to the entire year was incorrect due to price fluctuations. It directed the AO to estimate gross profit at 8% of total sales and allow 90% of claimed expenses.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained without any incriminating material, especially when the assessment was unabated. The assessee had discharged their onus by providing evidence, shifting the burden to the Assessing Officer, who failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that despite Section 150(1) allowing reopening based on directions, Section 150(2) bars such reopening if the limitation period under Section 149 had expired. Therefore, the reopening was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained without any incriminating material, especially when the assessment was unabated. The assessee had discharged their onus by providing evidence, shifting the burden to the Assessing Officer, who failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained without any incriminating material, especially when the assessment was unabated. The assessee had discharged their onus by providing evidence, shifting the burden to the Assessing Officer, who failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that extrapolating a two-month profit margin to the entire year was incorrect due to price fluctuations. It directed the AO to estimate gross profit at 8% of total sales and allow 90% of claimed expenses.