Loading ITAT cases…
524 orders · Page 4 of 11
The Tribunal held that the date of the broker's note should be considered the date of transfer for securities, as per CBDT Circular No. 704. Delayed payments to brokers do not invalidate the gains as income from undisclosed sources when purchases and sales are evidenced. The direction to provide distinctive numbers was deemed impossible for dematerialized shares.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable only to the transfer of land or building, not to the transfer of rights in property. Since the assessee only transferred rights accrued under an agreement without transferring title, Section 50C was not applicable. The loss incurred was treated as a capital loss, not a business loss.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that while no specific limitation period is prescribed in the Act for orders under Section 206C, a reasonable period of limitation should be applied. Following previous decisions, a period of four years from the end of the assessment year was considered reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances and additions made by the departmental authorities. This was primarily due to the assessee's failure to appear, provide evidence for claimed expenses, or substantiate its claims regarding income and losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal as the intimation under section 143(1) was served late. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances and additions made by the departmental authorities. This was primarily due to the assessee's failure to appear, provide evidence for claimed expenses, or substantiate its claims regarding income and losses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities rejected the assessee's claim solely on the non-production of the original agreement. To uphold natural justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to produce the original agreement and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice require giving the appellant an opportunity to contest on merits. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the issues were restored to the Competent Authority for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that advertisement expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes should not be disallowed for creating brand value, as goodwill is a by-product and monetized upon business sale. The decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for a subsequent year on identical facts was followed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances and additions made by the departmental authorities. This was primarily due to the assessee's failure to appear, provide evidence for claimed expenses, or substantiate its claims regarding income and losses.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal accepted this submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee university, established by an Act for educational purposes, is not engaged in 'business' as defined by the Income Tax Act. It also found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 12A(1)(b) and the proviso to Section 44AB for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is a normal expenditure incurred in the course of charitable activities and needs to be deducted while computing income. It also affirmed that the amendment regarding Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act is prospective, not retrospective, for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a well-reasoned order regarding the property valuation, accepting the transaction at circle rate. However, the judgment indicates that the appeals were partly allowed, suggesting that some issues were decided in favor of the assessee and others in favor of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice require giving the appellant an opportunity to contest on merits. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the issues were restored to the Competent Authority for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances and additions made by the departmental authorities. This was primarily due to the assessee's failure to appear, provide evidence for claimed expenses, or substantiate its claims regarding income and losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including wealth tax returns, showing sufficient cash in hand to cover the deposit. The authorities below failed to controvert these submissions with adverse material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including wealth tax returns, showing a sufficient cash balance in hand prior to the deposit. The authorities below failed to controvert this evidence or bring any adverse material on record.
The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits.
The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not examined the issue of the jewellery in detail. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to not maintaining regular books of accounts and that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions without calling for a remand report. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had suo motu disallowed all expenses and capitalized them, and had no business income for which expenses were claimed, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. The Tribunal also noted that identical disallowances in preceding years were deleted.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening were not logical and not supported by records. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not claim the losses and that the stock broker denied the assessee as their client, rendering the AO's belief of escaped income unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden under Section 68 by rebutting the suspicious circumstances raised by the AO. Transactions through a DMAT account or on a stock exchange were not sufficient evidence to rebut the findings.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act 2012 was clarificatory and applicable from AY 2005-06 onwards. It noted that the issue was settled in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years, including by the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that the appeal against the rectification order was distinct from the appeal settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 16,75,000/- related to the sale of land should be allowed as explained. Additionally, Rs. 2,00,000/- could be considered as past savings and agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the land was ancestral property inherited prior to 1956, thus forming part of an HUF. It further noted that Section 54B was amended effective April 1, 2013, to explicitly include HUFs, making the exemption available.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following its own order in the assessee's brother's case. This was to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and establish that the land was not converted to non-agricultural purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the delay and the absence of a condonation petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT under Section 14 of the IBC, all proceedings against the assessee, including the present appeal, cannot continue. This is due to the overriding effect of the IBC over other laws.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were between two units of a single entity due to amalgamation. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS and 269T were not violated, and no penalty was leviable.
The Tribunal held that the liability was subsisting as it was not written back in the books of account and the assessee had not received any benefit by way of remission or cessation. Therefore, Section 41(1) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is an allowable claim, especially when supported by expert reports and judicial precedents. The valuation of goodwill, even if based on projections, cannot be challenged merely because future performance did not match those projections.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the nature of the assessee's business, which involved launching a news channel. The Tribunal found that the business operations required content creation and resources for broadcasting, and that expenses incurred before the inauguration of the channel were legitimate.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of the cash deposits, considering his age, agricultural background, and the provided year-wise summary of cash withdrawals, deposits, and utilization. The explanation offered was deemed satisfactory.