Loading ITAT cases…
276 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based on the uncorroborated statement of a hospital manager who lacked concrete data and on abstract figures. The Tribunal noted that the hospital's patient list included non-billed patients and that the assessee's declared income was substantial.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reason provided by the assessee to be reasonable. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the quantum appeals on merits, these were remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), finding the reason provided by the assessee to be reasonable. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the quantum appeals on merits, these were remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in reducing the total interest expenditure from earning of exempt income by reckoning direct interest expenditure. Respectfully following a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the income by adding Rs. 48,000/- as rental income, allowing telescoping benefit for Rs. 1,84,500/-, and accepting Rs. 2 Lacs out of past savings/gifts. The balance addition sustained was Rs. 1.82 Lacs.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure a consistent stand by the revenue, aligning with a similar decision in the assessee's wife's case.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's claim for agricultural income, directing the AO to accept half of the claimed amount. The balance addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the remand report was not confronted to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the AO failed to verify the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period, there was no infirmity in the revision order passed by the PCIT. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's explanation regarding the availability of cash.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D cannot be applied mechanically and the AO must record objective satisfaction for disallowance. Since the AO failed to do so, the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. However, it found that a portion of the sale consideration was from genuine listed scrips and not penny stocks.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law because it was done beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, and the Revenue failed to establish any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. The original assessment was completed under section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) relied solely on the trial court judgment, which was later annulled by the High Court acquitting the assessee. No independent evidence was considered, and the disproportionate assets case was not directly linked. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that having a 50% share in a property does not constitute full ownership. Since both assessees acquired separate houses with 50% ownership each, they are entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the exemption claim under Section 11. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions which held that sports promotion falls under education as per Section 2(15).
The Tribunal held that having a 50% share in a property does not constitute full ownership. Since both assessees acquired separate houses with 50% ownership each, they are entitled to claim deduction under Section 54F.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the exemption claim under Section 11. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions which held that sports promotion falls under education as per Section 2(15).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was valid as the information was derived from the assessment record itself. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal allowed relief to the extent of ₹.9 lakhs, considering it as a substantiated source of loans.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred and not maintainable. It also upheld the disallowance of premium on debentures related to the revaluation of land, following earlier decisions.
The Tribunal held that the payment made by the assessee to Indus Ind Bank was a strategic expense for carrying on its business and was not prohibited by law. The Assessing Officer could not question the commercial expediency of the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessment of the entire capital gain in the hands of one co-owner is incorrect. The capital gain should be assessed in proportion to each co-owner's share. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was liable to be deleted because the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report, citing health issues and the accountant's departure.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable because the assessee had not claimed any deduction for this interest in earlier years. Therefore, the assessee did not receive any benefit of remission or cessation of liability.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had already considered the IND-AS adjustments while computing book profit under Section 115JB. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC amounted to a double disallowance.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of two comparables (Adecco Peopleone India Pvt. Ltd. and Alliance Comnet Ltd.) for AY 2006-07, finding them not functionally similar. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal also directed the exclusion of M/s. Killick Agencies & Marketing Ltd. as it was not functionally comparable.
The Tribunal allowed withdrawal of transfer pricing grounds for AY 2013-14 as withdrawn. For AY 2012-13, interest disallowance was upheld, but depreciation on UPS was allowed. For AY 2015-16, transfer pricing adjustments for services from associated enterprises were partially allowed, applying the MAP resolution ratio.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits with District Central Cooperative Banks is assessable as business income for a cooperative society and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision followed a Madras High Court ruling and a previous ITAT order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash book, showing a balance of Rs. 22,21,581/- as on 07.11.2016, should not be doubted as the assessee maintained regular books of account. Therefore, deposits to the extent of this balance should be allowed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposit before the Assessing Officer. The issue was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to comment, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this submission. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed withdrawal of transfer pricing grounds for AY 2013-14 as withdrawn. For AY 2012-13, interest disallowance was upheld, but depreciation on UPS was allowed. For AY 2015-16, transfer pricing adjustments for services from associated enterprises were partially allowed, applying the MAP resolution ratio.
The Tribunal held that a provision for project incentive is an unascertained liability and therefore, it needs to be added back to the book profit computed under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) was found to have erred in deleting this addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) considered additional evidence without confronting it to the AO and without obtaining a remand report, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Principal Commissioner's directions to re-examine the valuation of the property. The assessment order was set aside to consider the guideline value as the deemed full value of consideration as per Section 50C.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's circumstances and the mishandling by her representatives. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the explanation provided for the 649-day delay was not a sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that advances for land purchase cannot be considered investments violating Section 11(5) if the land deal did not materialize. It also ruled that notional interest cannot be imputed on such advances.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as defective because a single appeal was filed for two assessment years, and the assessee failed to rectify the defects despite opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was revenue in nature and related to the expansion of the assessee's existing business. The Tribunal found that the assessee had obtained recognition for its in-house R&D unit and had commenced carrying out R&D activities.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the explanation provided for the 649-day delay was not a sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that advances for land purchase cannot be considered investments violating Section 11(5) if the land deal did not materialize. It also ruled that notional interest cannot be imputed on such advances.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present his case, considering his old age and failure to appear due to not noticing the e-mail notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that while the PCIT's decision to not grant a personal hearing due to the pandemic is understandable, principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given another opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that while the PCIT's decision to not grant a personal hearing due to the pandemic is understandable, principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given another opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal considered the arguments of the Revenue's counsel. It was noted that similar appeals for the same assessment years had already been disposed of by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly adjusted income and expenditure from business income and offered the net amount under Income from House Property, meaning there was no actual variance. The adjustment made by the CPC was not sustainable.