Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing set off of brought forward losses without ascertaining their nature, as only specific types of losses can be set off against capital gains. The issue was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Explanation to Section 37(1) had attained finality and could not be invoked again. Since the trade discount was clearly shown in the sales invoices, the provisions of Section 40A(2) were not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed when the income related to the TDS is offered to tax, as per Sections 199 & 200 of the Act. Since the assessee claimed to have offered income on a mercantile basis, the TDS credit should be allowed if the income was indeed offered in the impugned assessment years.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is a notional disallowance and cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB, relying on a Special Bench decision and a Karnataka High Court ruling.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal held that a notional disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB, as per High Court decisions. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order directing re-computation of income under Section 115JB was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was a reimbursement and not a direct expense incurred by the assessee. Since Chennai Port Trust is a government organization, TDS was not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to take the property value at Rs. 2,000/- per sq.ft., granting partial relief. The Tribunal found no mistake in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the total expenditure debited to the Profit & Loss account. Therefore, the AO erred in computing a notional disallowance higher than the actual expenditure.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed when the income relating to the TDS has been offered to tax. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim that income relating to the disputed TDS was offered for taxation in the impugned assessment year.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year in question was the year of the search, Section 153C was not applicable, and no notice under this section was issued. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C was void ab initio.
The Tribunal allowed Rs. 8 lakhs as lease deposit, Rs. 2 lakhs as general marriage gift, and Rs. 2 lakhs as marriage gift from brothers, totaling Rs. 12 lakhs. The remaining Rs. 5 lakhs addition was sustained.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of 5% of project expenses and the addition towards interest on partner drawings/excess interest paid to partners back to the AO for re-examination. However, it upheld the disallowance of unexplained expenditure towards audit fees.
The Tribunal held that since the share issue proposal was abandoned, the expenditure did not increase the company's capital base or create an enduring benefit. Therefore, the expenses were revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that the AO rightly rejected the unregistered MoU and the consideration paid as it was a transaction between related parties. The AO correctly computed short-term capital gains based on the registered sale deed and the deemed consideration under Section 50C.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could transact in Specified Bank Notes up to the appointed date as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. The AO erred in not accepting the sale proceeds of property as the source for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in filling the return was a human error and the assessee's explanation for the same was acceptable. The CIT(A) should have considered the explanation rather than dismissing the appeal on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove it carried out charitable activities and that its business activities were incidental to charity. Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 was rightly denied by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for re-assessment. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's objections regarding non-furnishing of materials used against her and deal with the issue in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal falls within the Covid-19 period general exemption provided by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the guideline value and the sale consideration was less than 5%. Relying on the third proviso to Section 50C, which the Tribunal considered curative and applicable retrospectively, the PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it allowed R&D expenditure without sufficient inquiry, especially since the Bio-pharma division had no commercial activity or revenue in the relevant year. Consequently, the PCIT's action to set aside the assessment order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the identity and capacity of the ultimate investors, especially when funds were routed through tax havens. Merely receiving funds through banking channels or obtaining approvals was not sufficient when surrounding circumstances indicated a lack of transparency.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the identity and capacity of the ultimate investors, especially when funds were routed through tax havens. Merely receiving funds through banking channels or obtaining approvals was not sufficient when surrounding circumstances indicated a lack of transparency.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the identity and capacity of the ultimate investors, especially when funds were routed through tax havens. Merely receiving funds through banking channels or obtaining approvals was not sufficient when surrounding circumstances indicated a lack of transparency.
The Tribunal held that Section 167B of the Income Tax Act does not apply to societies registered under the Societies Registration Act or similar laws. Therefore, the tax should be re-computed at normal rates applicable to an individual.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of natural justice and the substantial enhancement in assessment, but imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly invoked section 263 as the assessee failed to explain the source of significant cash deposits, and the AO's assessment was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revision powers under section 263 as the Assessing Officer had already verified the source of property acquisition during limited scrutiny. The revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was on account of the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value. The appeal was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and the Ld. DR pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order. The DVO's valuation was adopted, and capital gains were computed based on that.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The issues raised by the Principal Commissioner had been adequately examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the land sold was indeed agricultural land based on evidence and a co-owner's case, thus deleting the capital gains addition. However, it confirmed the addition of cash deposits as the assessee failed to substantiate the linkage with withdrawals.
The Tribunal acknowledged the business expediency of cash payments at various construction sites, especially on holidays. It directed the AO to delete additions for payments made on Sundays/holidays and re-compute the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 154 is maintainable. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits.
The Tribunal held that the lands were indeed agricultural lands based on evidence and a previous order for a co-owner, thus deleting the capital gains addition. However, the addition for unexplained cash credit was confirmed due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the identity and capacity of the ultimate investors, especially when funds were routed through tax havens. Merely receiving funds through banking channels or obtaining approvals was not sufficient when surrounding circumstances indicated a lack of transparency.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the DCF method adopted by the assessee for valuing shares. The DCF method is a permissible valuation method under Rule 11UA, and the assessee had provided sufficient justification and supporting documents, including an independent valuer's report.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in reducing the net profit margin to 4% based on earlier assessment years and case laws. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the closing stock value for AY 2010-11 should be the same as the opening stock for AY 2011-12. The CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to correct the closing stock for AY 2010-11 was deemed logical and consistent.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined issues related to interest, audit fees, and capital gains. Therefore, the PCIT's order to revise the assessment was justified, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in a non-abated year, additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material unearthed during the search. Since the addition was based on regular books of accounts and not on any search material, it was not sustainable.
The tribunal found a nexus between the loan obtained and loans granted. However, it directed the AO to recompute the income by disallowing the excess interest paid, as there was no rationale for paying a higher rate.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years without new material and based on a mere change of opinion is invalid. The Assessing Officer failed to establish the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may have passed the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee or considering their written submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 154 is maintainable. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits.
The Tribunal held that while Section 80AC mandates denial of deduction for late filing, Section 143(1)(a) did not have enabling provisions to make such an adjustment for Section 80P deduction before April 1, 2021. Therefore, the CPC could not have made the adjustment for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's agricultural land holdings but found the VAO's certificate insufficient to prove the exact income. The Tribunal estimated the agricultural income and directed the AO to delete the addition to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs, sustaining the remaining Rs. 2.70 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 154 is maintainable. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits.
The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 154 is maintainable. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without deciding the merits.