Loading ITAT cases…
270 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 90,000 as income from other sources, finding that the assessee failed to prove cultivation and earning of agricultural income. However, for the other disputed amounts, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations reasonable and deleted the additions.
The Tribunal held that the land was not agricultural, considering its location in a developing area, the high sale price, and the purchaser being a real estate company. The earlier decision of a coordinate bench on a co-owner's appeal was followed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a lessee, is entitled to the deduction of gross lease rental payments. The principal portion of lease payments made by the assessee is considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 40A(3) are attracted to the cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000. The plea of commercial expediency was not accepted as the expenditure was not in the books of accounts and was found during a search.
The Tribunal found that various issues, including foreign exchange loss, diesel usage, Provident Fund and ESI payments, Guarantee Fee, and Section 14A disallowance, required further adjudication. Consequently, all issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the TPO and DRP erred in disregarding the commercial wisdom of the assessee and the relevant judicial precedents. The Tribunal found that the TPO's determination of Nil as the arm's length value was not supported by adequate evidence.
The Tribunal, by following a coordinate bench's order for earlier assessment years, held that the profit on the sale of undivided share of land should be treated as long-term capital gains. However, the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A for earning exempt income was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was marked as defective due to non-compliance with filing requirements. Since the defects were not removed and no representative appeared, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not obtaining a remand report before considering the assessee's submissions regarding the explanation of certain transactions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the letting of the factory building and the plant & machinery were inseparable, as evidenced by the identical terms and conditions in the separate lease agreements. Therefore, the rental income from both was rightly assessed as 'Income from other sources'.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, holding that interest earned on funds kept in fixed deposits during the pre-operative period is a capital receipt and should reduce the cost of assets.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) could not allow the carry forward of business losses for AY 2012-13 when the assessment for AY 2011-12 was still pending. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that medical expenses incurred for a director's relative are personal in nature and not related to the business. Following the High Court's decision in CIT vs. TIAM House Service Ltd., the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be unclear and lacking proper adjudication on all three issues. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
The ITAT, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity of hearing before the first appellate authority based on the principle of natural justice. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper adjudication. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity of hearing before the first appellate authority based on the principle of natural justice. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A) considered the reconciliation without confronting the AO, which was a procedural lapse. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification.