Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxing notional interest on interest-free loans has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the department's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application transactions. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction regarding the addition on gross receipts.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that employees of CCS HAU are covered under Section 10(10)(i) as they hold a civil post under a State. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to full exemption for the gratuity and leave encashment received.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not fully established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants. Merely presenting documents is insufficient to prove the genuineness of transactions.
The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were not in terms of sections 147 to 151 of the Act due to vague reasons, lack of application of mind by the AO, and absence of necessary approval. The issue of additions under section 68 was restored for deciding afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of account solely on the absence of a stock register without considering other factors, and the disallowance of expenses lacked proper basis.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following the mandatory procedure under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper inquiry and verification of evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular directed the department not to press appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. It found that the AO's belief of escapement of income was not substantiated by evidence, particularly regarding the status of Ms. Wadhera and the validity of the assessee's registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were made on an estimation basis without any specific findings of personal expenditure or non-allowable expenses. The assessee maintained audited books of accounts.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing its appeals due to repeated non-appearance. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals without hearing them on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable as it was based on a retrospective amendment that was later held to be prospective. The High Court's decision in Richa Apparels was followed.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision and a Delhi High Court ruling, held that the rental income should be taxed under the head 'income from house property' and not 'business income' because the primary object was letting out the property, not complex commercial activities.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision and a Delhi High Court ruling, held that the rental income should be taxed under the head 'income from house property' and not 'business income' because the primary object was letting out the property, not complex commercial activities.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision and a Delhi High Court ruling, held that the rental income should be taxed under the head 'income from house property' and not 'business income' because the primary object was letting out the property, not complex commercial activities.
The Tribunal held that the compounding fee paid to GDA is not an allowable expense under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that books of accounts cannot be rejected merely on the reason of a lower profit rate.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) had not considered her written submissions and the claim that the investment was made by her husband. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the construction of 'dhallows' for a period of three years, on a property not owned by the assessee, was in the revenue field and not capital in nature. The benefit of the expenditure was spread over the period of the contract, making it eligible for amortization.
The Tribunal held that the issue of aggregation of international transactions should be reconsidered in light of previous High Court judgments. The most appropriate method (MAM) for benchmarking royalty and FTS payments was left open for the TPO to decide after hearing the parties, depending on the aggregation/de-segregation outcome.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) should have considered the remand report and additional evidence. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for re-adjudication.