Loading ITAT cases…
73 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the notice was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the source of the remaining Rs. 3,87,550/- deposited in the bank account, as the sale consideration from agricultural land was only Rs. 7.70 lakhs. The reliance on case laws was found irrelevant to the facts.
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, considering the nature of the business.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was vague as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the notice was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 3% of the cost of goods sold as the assessee's income, finding it reasonable for the IMFL business.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the property occurred in FY 2010-11, relevant to AY 2011-12, and not in AY 2013-14. The reasoning was that while the registered sale deed was executed on April 26, 2012, the entire sale consideration was received by February 12, 2011, and possession was handed over during FY 2010-11. The delay in registration was attributed to reasons beyond the assessee's control, specifically the purchaser's insistence on including other family members as parties to the sale deed. The Tribunal interpreted Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, defining 'transfer', to include situations where possession is transferred even without immediate registration, especially when substantial rights are created in favour of the buyer. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's view on 'owner' and decisions from the Andhra Pradesh and Delhi High Courts, emphasizing that the substance of the transaction, rather than the form (registration), should be considered. Consequently, the capital gains could not be brought to tax in AY 2013-14. Furthermore, since the construction of the new house was completed after this deemed transfer date, the assessee was held eligible for the deduction under Section 54 of the Act. The Tribunal accepted the additional ground of appeal, and the other grounds were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of expenditure due to lack of supporting documents. However, the issue of interest charged under Section 234B was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to extra sale consideration, finding no evidence of cash payment by the assessee. It also allowed the claim of past savings as a source for investment and deleted the addition on hand loans after verification of the lender's source.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable to depreciable assets, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. However, it remanded the case to the AO to recalculate capital gains by considering the Written Down Value (WDV) of the block of assets as the cost of acquisition, as per Section 50A.
The CIT(A) accepted the transactions as genuine after verifying bank accounts and deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence to contradict its findings.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred for acquiring house property is eligible for set-off against income from house property, not income from other sources. However, since the recipients of the interest (parents) had offered it to tax, no disallowance could be made in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that non-charging or undercharging interest on delayed realization of invoices from an associated enterprise constitutes an international transaction requiring arm's length price determination. However, it directed that interest should be charged at LIBOR plus 200 basis points on foreign currency receivables after the expiry of the industry average credit period.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 3% of the cost of goods sold, a more reasonable rate. The issue of bank interest income was remitted to the AO for verification. The addition of cash credits was set aside and remitted to the AO to consider additional evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for capital gains to be taxed, there must be a transfer of a capital asset. Since possession of the land was not handed over to the developer and the developer had not discharged its obligations, no transfer occurred as per Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. Consequently, the disallowance of the exemption claim was quashed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the cash payment for the property, finding no evidence to support the AO's claim. For the issue of savings, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of offered income. The addition for a loan from the assessee's mother was accepted based on verification.
The Tribunal permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2,52,000/- as unexplained investment in property, finding no evidence of extra sale consideration paid by the assessee. It also deleted additions of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- as loans, holding that the creditworthiness of the creditors was established and the assessee should not be faulted for the creditor's defaults.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the property sale consideration, finding no evidence of cash payment by the assessee. It sustained a partial addition regarding cash in hand as a source for property purchase. Additions for loans from two individuals were deleted as the assessee provided confirmations and their income tax returns.
The Tribunal held that for capital gains to be taxed, there must be a transfer of a capital asset. Since possession of the land was not handed over to the developer and the developer had not discharged its obligations, no transfer occurred as per Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that for capital gains to be taxed, there must be a transfer of a capital asset. Since possession of the land was not handed over to the developer and the developer had not discharged its obligations, no transfer occurred as per Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.