Loading ITAT cases…
140 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to consider the claims made by the assessee in the return of income, including the claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO should not have treated the entire deposits as unaccounted income. It directed that only the peak credit, from sources not explained by the assessee, should be brought to tax, agreeing with the assessee's submission regarding cash flow between bank accounts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 50,000. Regarding the computation of income and segregation of speculative business, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the nature of transactions and recompute income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that running a dance school, even with nominal fee collection, constitutes an educational activity and is not inherently commercial. The fees collected were deemed necessary for the maintenance of the institution.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 50,000. Regarding the computation of income and segregation of speculative business, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the nature of transactions and recompute income accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 50,000. Regarding the computation of income and segregation of speculative business, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the nature of transactions and recompute income accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 50,000. Regarding the computation of income and segregation of speculative business, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the nature of transactions and recompute income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that running a dance school, even with nominal fee collection, constitutes an educational activity and is not inherently commercial. The fees collected were deemed necessary for the maintenance of the institution.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to re-compute the income as per the directions, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical issues. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the value of the building on the Guntur property when computing the cost of acquisition for LTCG. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for recomputation.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to the assessee to provide necessary details for R&D expenditure. The AO is to verify and consider the allowability of the expenditure, ensuring a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a money lender, is expected to have cash on hand. Given the previous year's accepted cash balance and the cash flow statement demonstrating sources, the cash on hand could not be doubted solely due to demonetization deposits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to the long delay in filing and the assessee's ineligibility to claim expenditure deductions without Section 12A/12AA registration. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circulars No. 03/2018 and 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to the assessee to provide necessary details for R&D expenditure. The AO is to verify and consider the allowability of the expenditure, ensuring a fair hearing.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to the long delay in filing and the assessee's ineligibility to claim expenditure deductions without Section 12A/12AA registration. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the sale agreement was in 2006 and full consideration was received by 2008, with possession given in 2009-10. Therefore, capital gains should be taxed in AY 2010-11, when the assessee had already offered it to tax.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies used by the TPO, while allowing others with corrected margins. It also directed the AO to allow deduction for employees' PF contribution if remitted within the due date.
The Tribunal directed the AO to calculate suppressed turnover based on seized documents, using Rs. 2,100/- per sq.ft. for flats where the rate was not mentioned. It also upheld the addition of Rs. 1 lakh per flat for amenities and estimated 10% of the suppressed turnover as income.
The Tribunal found the AO's order to be non-speaking and defective regarding the reasons for the additions. The CIT(A)'s order also lacked clarity on the source of information. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal directed the AO to calculate suppressed turnover based on seized documents, using Rs. 2,100/- per sq.ft. for flats where the rate was not mentioned. It also upheld the addition of Rs. 1 lakh per flat for amenities and estimated 10% of the suppressed turnover as income.
The Tribunal directed the AO to calculate suppressed turnover based on seized documents, using Rs. 2,100/- per sq.ft. for flats where the rate was not mentioned. It also upheld the addition of Rs. 1 lakh per flat for amenities and estimated 10% of the suppressed turnover as income.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to his medical condition. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age, health condition, and a similar case of her sister. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs and did not fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance due to his medical condition. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and set aside the order. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that since the AO had accepted the explanation of the assessee's HUF regarding the sources of deposits after issuing a notice, the creditworthiness of the HUF was deemed accepted. Therefore, the same amount could not be treated as unexplained cash in the hands of the individual assessee.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the payment (commission vs. discount) needed verification. It remitted the matter back to the AO to examine the books of accounts and vouchers to determine if the payment attracted TDS provisions.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the payment (commission vs. discount) needed verification. It remitted the matter back to the AO to examine the books of accounts and vouchers to determine if the payment attracted TDS provisions.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the payment (commission vs. discount) needed to be verified by the AO. If it was commission, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would apply; if it was discount, it would not.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the payment (commission vs. discount) needed verification. It remitted the matter back to the AO to examine the books of accounts and vouchers to determine if the payment attracted TDS provisions.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the payment (commission vs. discount) needed verification. It remitted the matter back to the AO to examine the books of accounts and vouchers to determine if the payment attracted TDS provisions.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. The assessee was to be given a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that excise duty refund is income derived from the undertaking and eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. It distinguished the Liberty India case, stating that excise duty refund is not a transferable commodity like DEPB/Duty Drawback Benefits.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDs maintained by the cooperative society to ensure availability of funds for lending to its members is incidental to its business and should be treated as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The purpose of the deposits, not the quantum of income, is paramount.
The Tribunal held that if the income of the amalgamating company is offered to tax by the amalgamated company, then credit for advance tax and TDS paid by the amalgamating company must also be given. The issue was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal stating that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income is earned. The issue was remanded to the AO to verify if any exempt income was earned, with disallowance to be made only if exempt income exists.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, granting the assessees another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, with a warning to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that several companies selected by the TPO as comparables were functionally dissimilar to the assessee's business. After excluding these, the arithmetic mean of the remaining comparables was 20.31%.
The Tribunal found that some comparable companies selected by the TPO were functionally dissimilar and excluded them. Regarding interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine the issue considering the FIFO method for adjusting advances.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, granting the assessees another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's financial condition and the lack of proper cooperation with revenue authorities, remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo consideration, cautioning the assessee to cooperate in future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circulars No. 03/2018 and 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions applied.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-compliance and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, granting the assessees another opportunity to be heard.