Loading ITAT cases…
61 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Assessing Officer's denial of this deduction was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the cement cost was revenue expenditure and allowed that ground. For ad-hoc disallowances of other expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance. The issue of loan credits was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the cement cost incurred by the assessee was revenue expenditure. Regarding ad-hoc disallowances of expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance. The issue of loan credits was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the cement cost was revenue expenditure and allowed that ground. For ad-hoc disallowances of other expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance. The issue of loan credits was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the cement cost was revenue expenditure and allowed that ground. For ad-hoc disallowances of other expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance. The issue of loan credits was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon for additions.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to make additions.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to make additions.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that STBs qualify as energy-saving devices eligible for 80% depreciation. Therefore, depreciation at 15% as allowed by the Assessing Officer is upheld.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Assessing Officer's denial of this deduction was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that since the Apex Court had dismissed the SLPs, the current appeals were rendered infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in light of the Apex Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by cooperative societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of the banking activity of the assessee society. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee societies on investments made with sub-treasuries and banks is part of their banking activity. Therefore, this income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the Apex Court had dismissed the SLPs, the current appeals were rendered infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in light of the Apex Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that while additions for unexplained credits and deposits were justified due to lack of satisfactory explanation, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. This was because the assessee had provided confirmation letters, and the issue was a lack of explanation rather than deliberate concealment.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the DVO is permissible only after rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Since the assessee's books were not rejected, the DVO's report could not be relied upon to revise the assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the Apex Court had dismissed the SLPs, the current appeals were rendered infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in light of the Apex Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was a technical and venial breach, especially since the report was available to the Assessing Officer before the assessment was completed. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the sale of the entire business undertaking for a lump sum consideration without assigning values to individual assets and liabilities constitutes a slump sale. Therefore, the profit arising from such a sale is to be treated as capital gains under Section 50B.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, stating that assessment proceedings are not adversarial and the Assessing Officer has a duty to correct honest mistakes. The Tribunal allowed the correction of the capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that the due date for investment under Section 54F includes the extended due date under Section 139(4). However, the intermediary period between the sale of the asset and investment requires deposit in a specified bank account.
The assessee's authorized representative stated that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting the assessee liberty to file an appeal against any consequential order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence of agricultural operations for two years prior to the transfer, a key condition for exemption under Section 10(37). Therefore, the exemption was not admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on software purchases in FY 2011-12, as Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) was introduced later with retrospective effect, making it impossible for the assessee to foresee the obligation at the time of purchase. Therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, which is below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of depreciation to the Assessing Officer to examine ownership and physical control of the assets. The issue of bad debts was also remitted to the Assessing Officer to clarify whether the amount was included in the provision for doubtful receivables and to determine the correct assessment year for the claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct tax on the interest paid to the sister concern and upheld the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). It also confirmed the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for cash payments and did not fall under any exemption under Rule 6DD.