Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable when the exempt income is Nil. Rule 8D can only be applied when there is difficulty in identifying expenses related to exempt income, which was not the case here.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable when the exempt income is Nil. Rule 8D can only be applied when there is difficulty in identifying expenses related to exempt income, which was not the case here.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention that the addition should be limited to peak cash credit was not properly dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions in similar cases, directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale. This estimation should not be less than the profit already disclosed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that under the proviso to Section 12A(2), exemption under Section 11 can be granted for assessment years prior to the registration date if the assessments were pending and the objects remained the same. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that if completed blocks of a housing project fulfill the conditions of Section 80IB(10), deduction is allowable for those blocks. The issue was remanded to the AO to verify if blocks A & D met the criteria for the deduction.
The tribunal held that the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was not warranted if the recipient offered the income to tax. For the interest claim, it was allowed as it was used for business purposes and the income from the partnership firm had already suffered tax.
The tribunal held that the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS was not warranted if the recipient offered the income to tax. For the interest claim, it was allowed as it was used for business purposes and the income from the partnership firm had already suffered tax.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision and directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 3% of the cost of goods put to sale, subject to it not being less than the profit already disclosed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the common passage area, purchased by the assessee, should be considered part of the acquired area. However, the issue of encroached area and brokerage claim needed further examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the mere fact that the property let out is a commercial complex is not sufficient to treat rental income as business income. The intention of the company, tenure of lease, and services provided are key factors, and in this case, the assessee's intention was to earn long-term rental income as income from house property.
The Tribunal held that since the AO accepted the existence of the HUF, any addition related to the HUF's funds should be made in the hands of the HUF, not the individual assessee. The addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- was directed to be made in the hands of the HUF.
The Tribunal held that the rental income cannot be taxed twice, especially when the revenue suffers no loss as the income was declared and taxed in the hands of the assessee's father. The family arrangement was considered genuine as it was demonstrated by declaring the income in the father's return.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 after the expiry of the six-year limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Furthermore, Section 150 was incorrectly applied as the ITAT's previous observations were not a direction. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard and without considering the merits.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings after more than 6 years was not within a reasonable period, citing jurisdictional High Court and Delhi High Court judgments. Therefore, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage, citing the long delay and lack of prior substantiation. The assessee's inability to explain the sources of the deposit and investment was noted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee accepted the estimated addition and paid taxes thereon, and the income source was established during appellate proceedings, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed income. Therefore, the penalty order was cancelled.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to file the appeal electronically, considering it was the first year of mandatory e-filing. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that a single transaction of property development does not constitute a business activity. However, it found the AO's estimation of construction costs to be too low and directed a revised estimation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a GPA holder, was not the owner of the property and therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in his hands. The sale deed executed in favor of his daughter was also not considered a transfer of ownership by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order directed the DIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the revenue authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order directed the DIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the revenue authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order directed the DIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the revenue authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that a previous ITAT order directed the DIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the revenue authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, including High Court judgments. These decisions established that the assessee was not engaged in activities in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, and therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. This decision followed precedents from various High Courts and the Tribunal's coordinate bench.
The Tribunal found that although the CIT(A) provided multiple opportunities, the assessee's counsel's inability to appear was due to illness. Therefore, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 3% of the cost of goods sold as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the appeal on its merits after deciding the delay condonation application, allowing the assessee to file the necessary application.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which held 3% profit estimation reasonable for similar businesses. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to adopt 3% of the cost of goods sold as income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits and could not pass ex-parte orders. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order regarding the adoption of the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it on a technical ground. Therefore, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee for a fair hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing that the appeal be considered on its merits if filed electronically within two weeks, without reference to limitation. This was based on a High Court observation regarding e-filing.
The Tribunal held that the date of the development agreement was the date of transfer as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's oral submission regarding Section 45(5A) as it was not raised before lower authorities and the amendment was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits and could not pass ex-parte orders. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order regarding the adoption of the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits and could not pass ex-parte orders. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order regarding the adoption of the maximum marginal rate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits and could not pass ex-parte orders. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a reasoned order regarding the adoption of the maximum marginal rate.