Loading ITAT cases…
484 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets purchased by a charitable institution, even if the expenditure was treated as application of income, for assessment years prior to April 1, 2015. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to produce audited books of account and comply with queries. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the AO erred in making an adjustment for common/head office expenses as the DRP had already considered this issue and found it to be at arm's length. Regarding finance cost, the tribunal restored the issue to the AO for proper determination of non-specific finance costs to be allocated.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee has registration under Section 12AA, the AO must compute income under Section 11 and cannot deny exemption by invoking the proviso to Section 2(15). Cancellation of registration is the recourse for such situations.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not consider a previous ITAT decision on identical facts where the assessee's claim was accepted. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the property belonged to the individual co-owners, not the HUF, as there was a lack of cogent evidence to prove HUF ownership. Consequently, the capital gains were taxable in the hands of the individual assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10.89 lakhs as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for current year's sales or recovery from debtors to explain the cash deposits. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition was found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they did not appear despite being notified. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions purely on assumptions and surmises without bringing any documentary evidence on record to support adverse inferences regarding the genuineness of transactions. The assessee's transactions were duly supported by documentary evidence and settled through banking channels.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the decision of the Delhi High Court, following previous ITAT rulings and considering the appointment of a receiver.
The Tribunal observed that the unserved notice indicated the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed and pending appeals may be withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal found that several aspects of the case required verification by the Assessing Officer, including the functionality of the online verification facility for LTDC, the submission and consideration of Form 26A, and whether the payees had paid taxes. The case was therefore remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning software expenses, directing the AO to re-examine the issue after verifying bills and vouchers. Other grounds were either dismissed or allowed based on previous tribunal orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order without discussing the facts or merits of the case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in dismissing the application as premature. Since the assessee had been granted registration under section 12A, indicating satisfaction with its charitable activities and objects, and no violation of 80G(5) conditions was noted, the assessee was entitled to approval.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the decision of the Delhi High Court, following previous ITAT rulings and considering the appointment of a receiver.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment year was covered by the roll-back period of the APA. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the delay was caused by the introduction of new procedures for filing e-TDS returns quarterly instead of annually. The staff's unfamiliarity with the new system was accepted as a reasonable explanation for the delay.
The tribunal found that debit entries in the diary represented transfers to the head office and should not be added as income. It also noted potential arithmetical errors and directed the AO to examine these issues, along with unaccounted expenditures.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made on account of ALP of international transactions. The Tribunal found the facts identical to earlier years where similar appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel that if the addition itself has been deleted, the penalty based on that addition cannot survive. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the email from the assessee's daughter, expressing her desire to reimburse wedding expenses from gifts received at her reception, constituted relevant material. Therefore, the cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- could not be treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding deposits from brothers' share of land sale consideration, supported by affidavits, was presented for the first time. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for further examination and verification.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority is not fettered by the Goetze India Ltd judgment in considering revised computations. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the Section 80IC deduction based on the revised computation, specifically addressing the depreciation claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made on account of ALP of international transactions. The Tribunal found the facts identical to earlier years where similar appeals were dismissed.
The tribunal found that debit entries in the diary represented transfers to the head office and should not be added as income. It also noted potential arithmetical errors and directed the AO to examine these issues, along with unaccounted expenditures.
The tribunal found that debit entries in the diary represented transfers to the head office and should not be added as income. It also noted potential arithmetical errors and directed the AO to examine these issues, along with unaccounted expenditures.
The Tribunal held that the AMP expenditure cannot be treated as a separate international transaction requiring independent benchmarking, and deleted the adjustment made by the TPO. The judgment also addresses the issue of bad debts, though the details of the decision on this point are not fully provided in the excerpt.
The tribunal found that debit entries in the diary represented transfers to the head office and should not be added as income. It also noted potential arithmetical errors and directed the AO to examine these issues, along with unaccounted expenditures.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and the unserved notice. Relying on previous judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation cannot be relied upon without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Furthermore, CPWD rates are not comparable to local PWD rates for construction valuation.
The tribunal found that debit entries in the diary represented transfers to the head office and should not be added as income. It also noted potential arithmetical errors and directed the AO to examine these issues, along with unaccounted expenditures.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance and unserved notice. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Passenger Service Fee (PSF) does not attract TDS under Section 194J as it is a statutory levy collected by the airline as a conduit. It also held that credit card commissions retained by banks do not attract TDS under Section 194H as the relationship is principal-to-principal, not agency.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made on account of ALP of international transactions. The Tribunal found the facts identical to earlier years where similar appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AMP expenditure cannot be treated as a separate international transaction requiring independent benchmarking, and deleted the adjustment made by the TPO. The judgment also addresses the issue of bad debts, though the details of the decision on this point are not fully provided in the excerpt.
The tribunal found that debit entries in the diary represented transfers to the head office and should not be added as income. It also noted potential arithmetical errors and directed the AO to examine these issues, along with unaccounted expenditures.
The Tribunal found that the facts were identical to a previous case for assessment year 2011-12 where the matter was set aside. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a de-novo order.
The Tribunal found that the facts were identical to a previous case for assessment year 2011-12 where the matter was set aside. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a de-novo order.
The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural and located more than 8 KMs from the municipality at the time of sale, with a village population less than 3000. Therefore, it was not a capital asset under Section 2(14).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on material not confronted to the assessee for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. This ground was not adjudicated by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had ignored the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 57. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on this specific ground.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on material not confronted to the assessee for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. This ground was not adjudicated by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer of the searched party must record satisfaction that the seized documents do not belong to the searched person before issuing a notice under Section 153C. Since this condition was not met, the notice was deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases of Sandalwood Oil were not substantiated by any cogent evidence. It further noted that the seized material relied upon did not pertain to the assessment year under consideration and lacked corroboration.
The Tribunal held that additions for capital introduced by partners in the first year of a firm's operation should be made in the hands of the partners, not the firm. The issue of sales returns was restored to the AO for further examination.