Loading ITAT cases…
462 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed without jurisdiction as the assessee's case had been transferred to another AO prior to the penalty order. The reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Varkey Chako was found to be misplaced.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not conduct a thorough inquiry into the nature of the agreement, payment terms, and separate account maintenance to determine if the assessee acted as a developer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the delay in TDS deposit was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, citing the maxim 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia'. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12A(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) dismissed the application by considering irrelevant facts and adopting a hyper-technical approach, failing to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 12AA. The Tribunal found that the assessee was created by a special act for the development of infrastructure in a specified industrial area, with the predominant purpose of creating and developing facilities for industries in the state. Its legal existence is akin to a municipal corporation for developing facilities in a specified area, which is a charitable activity for the welfare of the public at large and thus an activity of general public utility. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was no prime object or element of earning profit as a private developer or builder. Activities like acquiring land and selling developed property are incidental, and any profit earned therefrom must be used towards the assessee's charitable purposes. Therefore, the newly inserted proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act cannot be invoked to deny registration. The impugned order of the CIT(E) is set aside, and the Commissioner is directed to grant registration under Section 12A of the Act.
The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee's AR for their absence before the authorities below. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure, relying on judicial precedents and the nature of the license agreement which did not involve transfer of ownership rights. Other grounds related to depreciation and interest income were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the royalty payment was revenue expenditure. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own cases which had relied on jurisdictional High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the investments in mutual funds pertained to the assessee's wife and the share investments were due to a clerical error in reporting. The foreign travel expenditure was also deemed sufficiently explained by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on the amalgamating company was void ab initio. The scheme of amalgamation was approved by the Delhi High Court effective from April 1, 2012.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a partial benefit of explained jewellery based on CBDT Instruction No. 1916 for family members, but confirmed the addition of the remaining unexplained jewellery. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the sale of jewellery, stating that the acquisition source remained unexplained.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a preceding assessment year was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and sent the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, following its own precedents, allowed exemption in respect of arrears of gratuity under Section 10(10)(i). Other grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure, relying on judicial precedents and the nature of the license agreement which did not involve transfer of ownership rights. Other grounds related to depreciation and interest income were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to produce the loan creditors for examination and substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The onus remains on the assessee to provide satisfactory evidence.
The Tribunal held that while normally records are expected, the affidavit regarding lost records due to company closure and relocation cannot be disregarded. It directed the deletion of most disallowances, including salary, miscellaneous expenses (partially), travelling, vehicle maintenance, bank charges, preliminary expenses, and loss on sale of vehicle, but confirmed the disallowance of loss on sale of investment.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payments were revenue expenditure, relying on judicial precedents and the nature of the license agreement which did not involve transfer of ownership rights. Other grounds related to depreciation and interest income were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that NOIDA is a corporation established by a State Act and qualifies for exemption from TDS under Section 194A. It also held that payments for land cost were not rent and were made in a prior assessment year, and that TDS was not applicable on service tax as per CBDT circular.
The CIT(A) found that the advances were opening balances from the previous year, received through account payee cheques in the regular course of business. The Tribunal upheld these findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are to be computed on the actual sale consideration received by the assessee as per Section 48, not the deemed value under Section 50C. It further held that the exemption under Section 54EC is available on the capital gains computed on the actual sale consideration, provided the investment is made within the prescribed limits.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, following its own order for the preceding assessment year where similar facts led to deletion. The other ground was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reason for rejecting the books of account was not substantiated by evidence. Consequently, the rejection of books and the consequential additions were set aside, and the declared profit was accepted. However, the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) was denied as the society did not exclusively deal with the disposal of its members' labor.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order. It was held that the notice under Section 143(2) was indeed barred by limitation as per the proviso to Section 143(2)(ii) and the provisions of Section 139(1B).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the advertisement expenses. For the repair expenses, the Tribunal found 100% disallowance unjustified and directed it to be restricted to 20%.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, allowed exemption in respect of the arrears of gratuity. The assessee was extended the benefit of exemption under Section 10(10)(i).
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue as per CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the distance measurements by the Tehsildar and Income Tax Inspector were incorrect as they were not measured from the municipal limits but from the municipal office. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, allowed exemption for arrears of gratuity and leave encashment. It held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(10)(i) and 10(10AA)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 49,000, claimed as gifts to the minor child over several years, could not be treated as unexplained. Considering the acceptance of a cheque gift from the grandfather, the Tribunal found it difficult to dispute the cash gifts given the traditional societal practice of gifting cash to children on various occasions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty under Section 271AAA, as only the Assessing Officer has this power. Furthermore, the assessment year in question did not fall within the 'specified previous year' as defined for Section 271AAA.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Assessing Officer and producing records. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the ground related to the cross-examination of Sh. S.K. Gupta and by not providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. It was decided that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the quantification of disallowance under Section 14A needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. Consequently, the issue of adding this disallowance to book profits was also set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue of outstanding creditors to the Assessing Officer for verification of write-off in a subsequent year. It upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and the deduction for ground rent, following previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of outstanding creditors to the Assessing Officer for verification of write-off in a subsequent year. It upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and the deduction for ground rent, following previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.