Loading ITAT cases…
28 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the expenses debited to the profit and loss account were for day-to-day maintenance and administrative work and not for capital nature, directing the AO to delete the addition. The issue of land premium was considered debatable, and the CIT(A)'s view was affirmed.
The Tribunal found that crucial issues remained unexamined by the lower authorities, including discrepancies in sale consideration, cash flow details, and ownership of the land. The CIT(A) also passed orders without awaiting a remand report.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the assessee had already disallowed the expenditure in its revised return. The Tribunal also noted that the issue regarding loans for business purposes was decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the 'contingency provision for standard assets' is essentially a provision for bad and doubtful debts, which is a regular feature of banking business. Therefore, the assessee was eligible to claim this expenditure under Section 36(1)(viia).
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had indeed offered the amount to tax in earlier years by adding it back to the income in the computation of income.
The Tribunal found that crucial issues remained unexamined by the lower authorities, including discrepancies in sale consideration, cash flow details, and ownership of the land. The CIT(A) also passed orders without awaiting a remand report.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 15,36,486/- was deleted in quantum proceedings for AY 2010-11, the penalty on this amount could not be sustained. For other additions restored to the AO for fresh decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty, while allowing the AO liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if warranted.
The Tribunal found that crucial issues remained unexamined by the lower authorities, including discrepancies in sale consideration, cash flow details, and ownership of the land. The CIT(A) also passed orders without awaiting a remand report.
The Tribunal found that crucial issues remained unexamined by the lower authorities, including discrepancies in sale consideration, cash flow details, and ownership of the land. The CIT(A) also passed orders without awaiting a remand report.
The Tribunal found that crucial issues remained unexamined by the lower authorities, including discrepancies in sale consideration, cash flow details, and ownership of the land. The CIT(A) also passed orders without awaiting a remand report.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served within the time prescribed by law. Following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court, the ITAT concluded that the assessment order was time-barred.