Loading ITAT cases…
305 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that commission income earned from real estate business is covered under the company's objects and should be treated as business income. It also held that interest on FDRs, being inextricably linked to the business and capital work in progress, should be abated against the cost of construction. However, depreciation on tools and machinery used for construction was disallowed as they were considered part of the construction cost.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and additional evidence, finding that the Assessing Officer had violated principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment.
The Tribunal held that commission income earned from real estate business is covered under the company's objects and should be treated as business income. It also held that interest on FDRs, being inextricably linked to the business and capital work in progress, should be abated against the cost of construction. However, depreciation on tools and machinery used for construction was disallowed as they were considered part of the construction cost.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and additional evidence, finding that the Assessing Officer had violated principles of natural justice. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment.
The Tribunal noted that a similar addition made in a prior assessment year (2010-11) for the assessee was deleted by the ITAT in its own case. Following this precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition in dispute.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B was not tenable due to prior deductions under Sections 80HHC/80IC, as Section 80IC(5) prohibits claiming deductions under Section 10B in such cases. However, regarding the interest disallowance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance based on past practice and the availability of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income earned. It also held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable if TDS is deposited before the due date of filing the return. The matter regarding Section 80G was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if there is no exempt income earned. It also held that disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable if TDS is deposited before the due date of filing the return. The matter regarding Section 80G was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its initial onus under Section 68 and that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, advances made from such funds without charging interest do not warrant interest disallowance. Club membership fees for employees are allowable business expenses.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the liability was discharged in the subsequent financial year, the addition was incorrect. No addition can be made unless the Revenue gathers contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 4 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to comment on depreciation and capital expenses, remanding this part. However, the provision for directors' remuneration was upheld as an ascertained liability.
The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded sufficient satisfaction to invoke Section 14A and Rule 8D, even when the assessee claimed no expenditure was incurred. The disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary permission from the competent authority (Joint/Additional Commissioner) as required by Section 151 for issuing a notice under Section 148 beyond four years. Therefore, the reassessment was rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee violated the provisions of Section 269SS by accepting loans and share application money in cash. The penalty imposed under Section 271D was justified and upheld.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. The appeal was also found to be time-barred without any explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C cannot be invoked for applying Section 69B, as Section 50C is applicable only for computing capital gains. The revenue failed to provide any material to prove that the assessee invested more than the stated purchase price.
The Tribunal found that the directions given by the ITAT in a previous order were not properly complied with. The Tribunal noted that the explanation regarding payments by incoming directors to Sh. Sameer Kumar was not properly appreciated. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to family medical emergencies. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to family medical emergencies. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that there was no proof of service of notices on the assessee and that the assessee should not be condemned unheard. The case was set aside to the CIT for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). It was held that the assessee had acted with reasonable cause, as the errors in PANs were rectified as soon as correct information was received from the deductees, and there was no deliberate defiance of law.
The Tribunal held that the present appeals were posted by mistake and had become infructuous as they were already decided. The previous decision of the ITAT, which was affirmed by the High Court, would stand.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be vague and non-specific, and the Revenue had not challenged the deletion of additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The grounds raised by the Revenue were found to be vague and non-specific, and the Revenue had not challenged the deletion of additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the present appeals were posted by mistake and had become infructuous as they were already decided. The previous decision of the ITAT, which was affirmed by the High Court, would stand.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's non-appearance and lack of communication, inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide a specific finding on how the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, beyond a bald charge. Mere additions to returned income do not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. B.S. Shantha Kumari, held that Section 54F requires investment in a new house property within the time limit, not necessarily completion and habitability. The assessee had furnished sufficient evidence of investment within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, which violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify if the payees had paid their taxes and filed their returns. The AO was directed to re-adjudicate the matter based on this verification.
The Tribunal deleted the ad hoc disallowance of professional expenses and the addition for household expenses. However, it upheld the disallowance made under Section 40A(iii) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/-.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) reduced the business profit addition without proper factual findings or identifying calculation errors by the AO. Therefore, this issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in denying registration under Section 12AA based on issues relevant to assessment proceedings, not registration. The focus for registration should be on the genuineness of the objects, not the application of income. The Tribunal also directed the grant of approval under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBC(1) is not applicable to the assessee trust as it is established for religious and charitable purposes and the anonymous donations were not made with a specific direction for educational or medical institutions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding bad debts and remitted it to the AO for verification. It confirmed the deletion of disallowance for broken period interest and depreciation on LAN/WAN equipment, but restored the issue of depreciation on fixtures and fittings back to the AO.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding bad debts and remitted it to the AO for verification. It confirmed the deletion of disallowance for broken period interest and depreciation on LAN/WAN equipment, but restored the issue of depreciation on fixtures and fittings back to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the AO passed a cryptic order without proper adjudication, and the CIT(A) granted relief without giving the AO an opportunity to comment. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for interest paid on loans used for construction and repayment of old construction loans is allowable. The issue was already decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT and confirmed by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that export incentives (like DEPB benefits) are eligible for deduction under Section 10B based on jurisdictional High Court rulings. It also dismissed disallowances of interest on investments and interest on borrowed funds, finding them not applicable or already accounted for by the assessee.