Loading ITAT cases…
598 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal found that the reasons for non-compliance were not adequately discussed and the relevant material was missing. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on personal borrowings, which were introduced as capital in the proprietorship concern and used for business purposes, is deductible. This decision followed a previous ITAT ruling on an identical issue for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) should be allowed for the flats that comply with the prescribed area limit, following its own prior decisions and a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The deduction should not be disallowed for the entire project due to partial non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) should be allowed for the flats that comply with the prescribed area limit, following its own prior decisions and a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The deduction should not be disallowed for the entire project due to partial non-compliance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeded the exempt income. Therefore, no further disallowance was warranted, and the AO's addition was correctly deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal due to its lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. For the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on GP rate declines, stating that the AO should consider both increases and decreases holistically. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions on account of interest earned on earmarked funds, following previous years' precedents.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 11,444/-, and the balance was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Following Delhi High Court judgments, the limitation period for penalty orders begins from the initiation of penalty proceedings, not from the issuance of show-cause notices.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Following Delhi High Court judgments, the limitation period for penalty orders begins from the initiation of penalty proceedings, not from the issuance of show-cause notices.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Following Delhi High Court judgments, the limitation period for penalty orders begins from the initiation of penalty proceedings, not from the issuance of show-cause notices.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the non-compliance, citing the hospitalization of the assessee's aunt and grandfather. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted in accordance with Section 273B.
The Tribunal held that the penalty on the disallowance of director's remuneration was not leviable as it was a case of difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer regarding allocation of common expenses. The assessee had furnished all relevant facts, and there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible without actual receipt of exempt income. For AY 2011-12, it confirmed a 10% disallowance on vehicle expenses and allowed the interest on service tax as compensatory.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition, holding that there is no provision to add the difference between the stamp duty value and the transacted value in the hands of the buyer. The Tribunal also noted that Section 50C applied to the seller, not the buyer, and Section 56(1)(vii)(b) was not applicable for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible without actual receipt of exempt income. For AY 2011-12, it confirmed a 10% disallowance on vehicle expenses and allowed the interest on service tax as compensatory.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is not applicable if the income is not chargeable to tax in the hands of the non-resident recipient. Since the commission was for services rendered abroad, it was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was not of an enduring nature and thus not a capital expenditure, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years. The High Court had previously ruled that payments for technical know-how under a license agreement, even if spread over time, do not make the assessee the owner of the know-how and the benefit is not enduring.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved. This was in accordance with the CBDT instruction regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee did not receive the notices, there was no occasion to make compliance. Therefore, the confirmation of the penalty by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that there was no evidence of proper service of notices on the assessee, despite the assessee's explanation for non-compliance due to family and employment reasons. An opportunity was granted to the assessee to present documents to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. It also held that the provision for gratuity was an ascertained liability and thus not required to be added back for book profit calculation.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was also directed not to seek any adjournment.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, including the issue of jurisdiction. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal by reducing the addition, noting that the assessee had provided fund flow statements and peak balance working. However, these were not properly examined by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Revenue's request for time to procure reports was rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the deduction under Section 10A and the disallowance under Section 14A, following High Court precedents. The issue of interest on income tax refund was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed in the name of Mool Chand Textiles. However, it granted liberty to the assessee (Shri Puneet Kumar) to file a fresh appeal with a condonation of delay application if the appellate fee was indeed deposited.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was subject to the production of a lease deed for the plant and machinery. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to examine the lease agreement and ascertain the nature of the transaction in light of Section 10A(ii) & (iii).
The Tribunal found that crucial evidence regarding the cash investment and sundry creditors was not properly examined by the AO. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence and providing a fair hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding the reasons for non-compliance were not adequately discussed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IAB had been decided in favor of the assessee in earlier assessment years on similar facts. Following the principle of judicial consistency, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, noting that similar salary payments were accepted in subsequent years and a prior year's disallowance was deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the consistent stand of the department.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the license fee was capital or revenue expenditure was debatable. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the quantum addition on account of license fee had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a prior appeal for the same assessment year.