Loading ITAT cases…
158 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as the income was already declared in the return of income and the assessee had not earned any real income, resulting in an overall loss.
The CIT(A) had correctly followed the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services P. Ltd. case regarding the disallowance. Therefore, no infirmity was found in the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as the income was already declared in the return of income and the assessee had not earned any real income, resulting in an overall loss.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the assessment order was passed by a non-jurisdictional AO. Therefore, the assessment framed is bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the assessee was not aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order, which had already allowed the assessee's appeal in full. The new issue raised was not considered by the lower appellate authority.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be a non-speaking order. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all materials and providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the rate of depreciation depends on the installation date, not the purchase date. If the windmills were installed before March 31, 2012, 80% depreciation is applicable, even if purchased second-hand later.
The Tribunal held that the AO committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by completing the assessment in an unreasonably short period without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority's opportunity cannot substitute the initial opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by completing the assessment in an unreasonably short period without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority's opportunity cannot substitute the initial opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by completing the assessment in an unreasonably short period without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority's opportunity cannot substitute the initial opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by completing the assessment in an unreasonably short period without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority's opportunity cannot substitute the initial opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by completing the assessment in an unreasonably short period without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority's opportunity cannot substitute the initial opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by completing the assessment in an unreasonably short period without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority's opportunity cannot substitute the initial opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents set by the Madras High Court. The assessment orders and the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had now provided a bank certificate confirming the joint nature of the account and financial statements of his son's business. However, it was not definitively established that the cash deposits were accounted for as business receipts of the son's concern. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the mandate of Section 50C(2) by not considering the DVO's valuation report, even though a reference was made. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO to obtain the DVO's report and re-compute the capital gains.
The Tribunal found a gross violation of natural justice, similar to precedents set by the Madras High Court. The assessment orders and the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance was not deliberate, considering their age, lack of familiarity with electronic proceedings, and the pandemic context. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it held that the order passed by the Tax Recovery Officer was not an appealable order before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was wrongly levied on the assessee in his individual capacity. The lower authorities failed to appreciate that the property was owned by the HUF and the assessee's wife, and the assessee was acting as the Kartha of the HUF.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable as the issue was already considered by the AO. The Tribunal found that the AO had correctly allowed the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) based on the available figures.
The Tribunal held that the AO committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by completing the assessment in an unreasonably short period without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appellate authority's opportunity cannot substitute the initial opportunity before the AO.
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 40 Lacs of cash as unexplained money. For the jewellery, the tribunal granted partial relief by allowing a certain weight of jewellery based on family status as per CBDT instructions, restricting the unexplained jewellery addition.
The Tribunal held that for the 1/4th share inherited, indexation should be from the previous owner's holding period. For the 3/4th share acquired via a release deed, indexation should be from the year of acquisition. The issue of Section 54 exemption was remanded to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had now provided a bank certificate confirming the joint nature of the account and financial statements of his son's business. However, it was not definitively established that the cash deposits were accounted for as business receipts of the son's concern. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for the first property purchased could not be denied simply because the sale deed was executed later. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow the remaining deduction for the investment in the adjacent property and construction.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfied the ingredients of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditor, and the AO had not appreciated the material on record.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to comply with the mandate of Section 50C(2) by not considering the DVO's valuation report, even though a reference was made. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO to obtain the DVO's report and re-compute the capital gains.
The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the land was agricultural or urban, and whether impounded documents used against the assessee were provided. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly computed the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) as the assessee had earned both taxable and non-taxable income and did not maintain separate accounts for common expenditures. Therefore, the disallowance was sustained.
The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 as the cost for computing LTCG. For the cash deposit, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable given the surrounding circumstances of small donations for a school building project.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest should only be made on interest pertaining to working capital loans used for advancing interest-free loans to group concerns. The AO was directed to re-compute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society, not carrying out charitable activities as defined in Section 2(15) and exceeding the threshold for general public utility objects, is not entitled to exemption under Section 11. The matter was remanded to the AO for assessment as an AOP.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not provide complete evidence, the AO also did not definitively prove the amount was unexplained. Therefore, a middle ground was taken, confirming half of the addition and deleting the other half.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee offered the income for taxation once the bogus nature of the company was brought to her notice, it did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submissions and bank statements, allowed further relief. It found that transfers from the assessee's sister and availed jewel loans could explain a portion of the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not term the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue on issues outside the scope of limited scrutiny. Since the agricultural land purchase predated demonetization and was not part of the limited scrutiny, the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide any evidence to establish the arm's length price (ALP) of the imported fixed assets, the TPO was justified in presuming the cost at NIL. The DRP's confirmation of this adjustment was also upheld.
The Tribunal found that the interest computation appeared incorrect. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the figures and re-compute the interest under Section 234A in accordance with the law.
The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of late payment of Employees' Contribution to PF/ESI, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The tribunal also dismissed the plea that CPC could not make such disallowance during processing under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal found the impugned adjustment to be prima facie unwarranted. It directed the AO to verify the assessee's submissions and, if correct, delete the adjustment.
The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of late payment of Employees' Contribution to PF/ESI. However, it directed the AO to rectify the computation sheet regarding the alleged erroneous addition to income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust falls under the category of education as per Section 2(15). Letting out the auditorium was considered incidental to the educational purpose, and the income generated was within the permissible limits for such activities under the 'education' category.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust falls under the category of education as per Section 2(15). Letting out the auditorium was considered incidental to the educational purpose, and the income generated was within the permissible limits for such activities under the 'education' category.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust falls under the category of education as per Section 2(15). Letting out the auditorium was considered incidental to the educational purpose, and the income generated was within the permissible limits for such activities under the 'education' category.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of connectivity charges paid to TATA UK, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Verizon Communications Singapore Pvt. Ltd. The payments were held to be in the nature of royalty for the use of process and assured bandwidth.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of connectivity charges paid to TATA UK, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Verizon Communications Singapore Pvt. Ltd. The payments were held to be in the nature of royalty for the use of process and assured bandwidth.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of connectivity charges paid to TATA UK, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Verizon Communications Singapore Pvt. Ltd. The payments were held to be in the nature of royalty for the use of process and assured bandwidth.
The Tribunal held that the land was stock-in-trade as the assessee failed to provide evidence for its conversion to an investment under Section 45(2) of the IT Act. Therefore, profit or loss from its sale is assessable as business income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance of LTCG on shares, finding the transactions to be bogus penny stock. However, it allowed the appeal concerning additions related to construction activities, stating that the assessee had only sold land and not undertaken construction.