Loading ITAT cases…
399 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not legally valid as the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The AO's action was based on a change of opinion on the same set of facts, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the borrowed funds used to clear liabilities on the gifted property constitute the cost of improvement. Consequently, the interest expenditure incurred on such borrowings is allowable.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of expenditure for non-deduction of TDS does not automatically constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following precedent, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the gifts received. It also found that the explanation regarding cash withdrawals and redeposits was not substantiated with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal held that revenue from prepaid cards should be recognized as services are rendered, not on sale. As long as the assessee has an obligation to provide services, the unutilized portion cannot be treated as accrued income.
The Tribunal held that a legal issue can be raised at any stage. Therefore, the issue of non-service of notice under Section 143(2) was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while advances to contractors did not violate Section 11(5), a violation of Section 13(2) occurred due to interest paid on unsecured loans from specified persons. Consequently, the trust lost its exemption under Section 11 for the entire surplus.
The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution and not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee may have provided initial documentation, the Assessing Officer's inquiries raised doubts about the genuineness of the share applicants. The CIT(Appeals) failed to conduct proper verification or obtain a remand report.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had already decided the AY 2006-07 appeal, directing the AO to allow the carried forward long-term capital loss. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to give effect to the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal held that the intention of the legislature is to make an investment of capital gains, and this purpose is fulfilled if the land is purchased in the name of a close family member like the wife. Therefore, exemption under Section 54B should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that excise duty refund does not form part of profits derived from the undertaking, upholding the disallowance under Section 80IC. For Section 14A, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify if any tax-free income was earned, as disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding Section 40(a)(ia) by accepting the assessee's explanation based on the Section 197 certificate.
The Tribunal held that if the original addition on which a penalty was levied is deleted, there is no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the revised tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable and was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not explicitly mention service of hearing notices, violating the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem'). Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding deduction under Section 35(2AB) had been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous assessment year by the ITAT and confirmed by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for de novo verification. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to discharge its initial onus under Section 68 regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
The assessee informed the Tribunal that they have accepted the consequential assessment order and sought to withdraw the present appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing documents before the AO. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained proper books of accounts and there was no justification for invoking Section 145(3). The ad hoc addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IC is not allowable if the return is not filed by the due date as per Section 80AC. While acknowledging the pending CBDT petition, the Tribunal found no merit in keeping the issue alive and dismissed the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153A. The addition made under Section 2(22)(e) was deleted as the transaction was related to business and no incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the High Court's directions regarding the MOU and the utilization of borrowed funds. The issue of annual letting value was not to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not granting the set off of brought forward losses and not computing tax under Section 115JB when the tax payable under normal provisions was nil and book profit was higher. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, noting that transactions were routed through banking channels and lenders' PANs were provided. The assessee's appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits, noting that transactions were routed through banking channels and lenders' PANs were provided. The assessee's appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that quoting a wrong section for penalty levy is not fatal if the assessee was aware of the contravention and had an opportunity to be heard. However, it allowed the assessee one more opportunity to prove 'good and sufficient cause' for the delay in payment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the 'full value of consideration' in Section 48 of the Act can be replaced by the stamp valuation authority's value only if Section 50C applies. This depends on whether the sale was registered and the stamp duty value was higher than declared. The issue was not properly verified by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/- with retrospective effect. As the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, supported by agreements and proof of services rendered. The Tribunal noted that business development activities may not yield immediate revenue and that the revenue authorities cannot question the reasonableness of expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not valid because the AO of the searched person did not record satisfaction. Furthermore, additions made under Section 153A were invalid in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal regarding bad debts was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification, the penalty could not survive. For the issue of accrued interest on sticky loans, the Tribunal found the assessee's claim to be an alternative claim and not incorrect, thus directing the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal regarding bad debts was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification, the penalty could not survive. For the issue of accrued interest on sticky loans, the Tribunal found the assessee's claim to be an alternative claim and not incorrect, thus directing the deletion of the penalty.