Loading ITAT cases…
135 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services depends on whether the contributions were employee or employer contributions for ESI, and for gratuity/welfare funds, the timing of payment relative to the return filing due date needs verification. The facts were not clear.
The Tribunal held that 'other income' such as stability storage charges, analysis charges, foreign currency fluctuation gains, and interest are not eligible for deduction under Section 10B as they are not directly derived from export activities. However, the issue of setting off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against other income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merit, even if ex-parte, based on available material. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without merit consideration, the matter was restored.
The Tribunal held that once the AO treated the amount as the assessee's income under Section 69A, it could not simultaneously be considered a loan violating Section 269SS for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271D. The penalty was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merit, even if ex-parte, based on available material. Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without merit consideration, the matter was restored.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. A penalty of Rs. 2000/- was levied on the assessee for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the 'specified sum' under Section 269SS applies only to advances received in relation to the transfer of immovable property, not to the final sale consideration. Therefore, receiving the final sale consideration in cash does not constitute a contravention of Section 269SS.
The Tribunal found that the AO's calculation of the addition was unclear and lacked proper reasoning. The CIT(A) also sustained the addition without independent verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing a 10% disallowance for service charges and staff welfare expenses. The issue of discount on room rent was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that Explanation (1) to Section 32(1) allows depreciation on buildings constructed on leasehold land if the assessee incurs capital expenditure and has a right of occupancy. The AO did not examine if the assessee had any other right of occupancy besides a formal lease.
The Tribunal found that while evidence was filed, it was at the fag end of assessment proceedings. To ensure proper consideration of evidence and a fair hearing, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that while evidence was filed, it was at the fag end of assessment proceedings. To ensure proper consideration of evidence and a fair hearing, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal admitted that the sale proceeds were inadvertently mentioned as Rs.9,38,000/- instead of the actual Rs.21,42,000/-. The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to rectify this factual error in its previous order.
The Tribunal found that while evidence was filed, it was at the fag end of assessment proceedings. To ensure proper consideration of evidence and a fair hearing, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not disposing of the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to disallowance of depreciation and bogus purchases. However, it allowed the additional ground regarding the adjustment of losses against additions, directing the AO to consider the excess application of funds.
The Tribunal held that Capgemini and Harton were functionally dissimilar to the assessee's activities and directed their exclusion. It also directed the Assessing Officer to calculate interest on receivables at LIBOR+200 points and restricted the period to 31/03/2013.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the DCB reports and verify the non-existence of any demand for CST and VAT payments, as these could indicate proper payment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal held that no sale of the impugned land had materialized during the assessment year as the significant risks and rewards of ownership had not been transferred to the buyer. Consequently, tax could not be levied on the advance amount.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to a lack of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer and reliance on 'borrowed satisfaction'. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly adopted the turnover of Rs. 58,00,87,847/-. Based on Form 26AS, the actual gross contract receipt was Rs. 22,31,24,260/-, and the assessee's explanation for the discrepancy was bonafide.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a company, must be vigilant in attending to its tax matters. The reasons provided for the delay were not convincing and lacked bonafide, especially considering the significant time lapse even after the auditor's demise.
The Tribunal held that the bank statements clearly showed corresponding transfers to IRCTC and APSRTC for the deposits, indicating genuine business transactions. The marginal increase in declared income compared to the previous year also supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were client funds meant for payment to the Income Tax Department and were promptly paid, thus not constituting income. The interest expenditure was also allowed as the loan was used for HUF purposes.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares was not genuine and was designed to avoid tax. The CIT(A)'s recomputation of the short-term capital loss by adopting a lower purchase price was upheld.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal decided on various issues including unaccounted sale proceeds, undisclosed income from developers, capital account additions, and unexplained investments. In one instance, it held that credits in a bank account subsumed within declared business income should not be added separately.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case with requisite details and evidence. A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee will be given an opportunity to submit evidence, including invoices from earlier years, to substantiate the provision.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file. A fresh opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee to produce documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed submissions and that a fresh opportunity should be given. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the payment to Pfizer was for the purchase of assets, thus capital expenditure. The payment to Fresenius was for the business interest of Mylan Inc. and not wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business, hence not deductible.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not disposing of the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It restored the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their claim with requisite evidence. The assessee is directed to appear with all necessary documents without seeking adjournments.