Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, were capital in nature, as they were utilized for setting up a new unit or expansion of business. Therefore, they were not taxable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of the assessee's non-appearance without deciding the issues on merit. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was ad-hoc and not based on specific instances of lapse. The Tribunal noted that ad-hoc disallowances are not permissible under income-tax law.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the revenue authorities, agreeing with the lower authorities that the capital gain was not genuine. The Tribunal found the facts to be similar to a previous case where similar claims were rejected.
The Tribunal held that neither Section 50C nor Section 43CA was applicable to the transaction as the land was stock-in-trade and Section 43CA was not applicable for the assessment year in question. The addition was made without legal authority.
The Tribunal held that the accounting profit of Rs. 51,40,795/- was not taxable, and only the short-term capital gain of Rs. 12,96,143/- was the correct taxable income. The addition made by the AO was therefore unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the non-service of notices, as the office premises had been closed. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was not sustainable.
The tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's absence. The learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned orders of the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to condone the delay and admit additional evidence. The Tribunal also followed a coordinate bench's decision to delete the additions made by the AO regarding commission expenses and share capital.
The Tribunal held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) imposes a moratorium, prohibiting the continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeal could not be continued.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the revenue authorities, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the capital gains. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision with similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiries and considered the evidence before accepting the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was based on a change of opinion and not on any error in law or lack of enquiry.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiries and considered the evidence before accepting the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was based on a change of opinion and not on any error in law or lack of enquiry.
The tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's absence. The learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned orders of the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was unsustainable as the AO had conducted inquiries regarding the cash deposit and accepted the assessee's explanation after considering the submissions and evidence. The AO had taken a plausible view, and the assessment order could not be termed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the payment made by the assessee was not in the nature of royalty. This decision was based on a precedent set by the ITAT, Delhi, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Engineering Analysis Center of Excellence Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock and cash, admitted during survey and offered as income, attracted the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was valid.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the CIT(A) to analyze additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the independent status of Repute Engineers.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the CIT(A) to analyze additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the independent status of Repute Engineers.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of cessation of liability as the liabilities were either settled, had corresponding receivables, or were written off in later years. Similarly, the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was deleted as the AO failed to point out specific defects.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the capital gains from penny stocks. Relying on a previous decision with identical facts, the Tribunal upheld the additions made by the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in treating all transactions similarly, whether explained or unexplained, and taxing only the commission earned. The revenue's grounds were found to be devoid of merit.