Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the donation to the corpus fund of another trust is not an application of income under Section 11(1)(a). Therefore, the income derived from the sale of land is taxable as long-term capital gain under Section 11(1A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order violated Section 250(6) by not deciding the appeal on merits. While the assessee's conduct was deplorable, the order lacked a reasoned decision on the grounds raised.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Consequently, the penalty under section 271C was also cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the order was pronounced within the permissible time limit, considering the lockdown period due to COVID-19 as an extraordinary circumstance. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Consequently, the penalty under section 271C was also cancelled.
The Tribunal restored the entire issue to the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claim that the loan was given in FY 2003-04. If proven, no addition would be made for AY 2005-06.
The Tribunal held that notional or hypothetical income, not explicitly covered by the Income Tax Act, cannot be brought to tax. The revenue must prove that income has actually been earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without granting a fair opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the CIT instead of the Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessment order passed after the due date was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not examined the documentary evidence regarding cash withdrawals from the Syndicate Bank. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine these withdrawals in relation to the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the extension for the special audit was granted by the CIT instead of the Assessing Officer, which is contrary to the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessment order passed after the due date was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus to prove the violation of Section 13(2)(b) and that the lease transactions did not result in individual benefit. It also held that corpus donations are capital receipts and not taxable, irrespective of Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in making an addition under a new source of income (Section 69) without proper notice of enhancement and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is only applicable if exempt income is earned, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion. Regarding depreciation, it directed the written down value to be reduced by the actual sale consideration received, not the stamp duty value, leading to a revised excess depreciation disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for disallowing the deduction were not substantiated, especially since the deduction was allowed in previous years for the same machinery. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the assessee, such as VAT form 26A and previous assessment orders, supported its claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to disallowance under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(iii). However, it allowed the ground concerning the valuation of premium on share issuance, remanding it to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The PCIT revised the AO's order under Section 263, stating that the AO's assumption of only profit addition was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, as the entire purchases should be disallowed in the absence of proof of actual sourcing. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's jurisdiction and directed the AO to re-examine the case.
The Tribunal held that Modicare Ltd. was not a comparable company for the purpose of determining the ALP under the Resale Price Method (RPM) due to significant differences in product profile, functions, and accounting treatment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the TPO to adopt the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method and examine the comparables selected by the assessee.