Loading ITAT cases…
84 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the arrangement with THEAL and other parties was for profit-sharing rather than solely for educational purposes. Consequently, the benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was not available to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was imposed was deleted by the CIT(A) and no appeal was filed by the department against that deletion, the penalty had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment. However, the claim regarding the sale of land was rejected based on the buyer's statement. The issue of jewellery sale was restored to the AO for fresh verification due to inadequate inquiry. The claim for past savings was accepted.
The Tribunal held that while the current year's loss could not be carried forward due to the belated return, the brought forward losses from earlier years were not to be denied. These brought forward losses could be set off as per Section 72 of the IT Act.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not appear before the AO due to medical advice for complete bed rest for three months due to back pain. Documentary proof was provided to support this claim.
The Tribunal held that no demand for fees under Section 234E can be made in an intimation issued for TDS statements processed under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. Therefore, the late fee demand was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, it directed that additions should be computed based on the average gross profit rate of the assessee over the years, deleting additions for earlier years and modifying them for later years.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified, but the addition made by the AO was not entirely correct. For A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13, no addition was warranted as the GP rates were higher than the average. For A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15, additions were directed to be computed based on the average GP rate.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, it directed that additions for bogus purchases should be computed based on the average gross profit rate of the assessee over the years, deleting additions for certain years and modifying them for others.
The Tribunal held that reopening was justified as the AO had prima facie material. However, it found that for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13, the gross profit rates declared were higher than the average, warranting no addition. For A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15, additions were directed based on the average gross profit rate.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, it directed that additions for bogus purchases should be computed based on the average gross profit rate of the assessee over the years, deleting additions for some years and modifying them for others.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, it directed that additions for alleged bogus purchases should be computed based on the average gross profit rate of the assessee over the years, deleting additions for some years and modifying them for others.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's inquiry might not have been deep, it was not a complete lack of inquiry as the assessee had provided details. The PCIT's order was based on assumptions without examining the provided details.
The Tribunal held that the statement of Shri Vikrant Kayan did not directly implicate the assessee's transaction, especially since the assessee purchased shares of an unlisted company that was later amalgamated with a listed company. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced direct evidence of genuine transactions.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of book results and estimation of GP rate was justified due to the assessee's failure to provide stock and sales details. However, the issue of capital gains computation and cost of improvement was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after referring to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the basic onus of proving the genuineness of cash credits. Since the existence of the source of cash deposits was not proven, the AO was justified in treating them as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that since the addition for provision for standard assets was deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for this disallowance cannot survive. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adopting the stamp duty value as on the date of registration of the sale deed (April 12, 2012) instead of the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement to sell (December 17, 2011). The Tribunal found that the assessee had agreed to sell disputed land on December 17, 2011, and received Rs. 2,00,000 by account payee cheque on the same date. The registration of the sale deed was subject to the issuance of a patta, which was obtained on February 14, 2012, followed by registration on April 12, 2012. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration declared by the assessee (Rs. 33,84,590) was more than the DLC rate as of December 17, 2011 (Rs. 32,11,859). The Tribunal considered the provisos to Section 50C, inserted by the Finance Act, 2016, as clarificatory and applicable retrospectively, indicating the legislature's intent to adopt the DLC rate on the date of the agreement if a part of the consideration is paid by account payee cheque. Similar provisions in Section 43CA and Section 56(2)(vii) were also cited to support this interpretation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted. The ratio decidendi is that for the purpose of Section 50C, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to sell should be considered if a part of the consideration is paid by account payee cheque on that date, especially when the sale deed registration is delayed due to external factors and the declared sale consideration is not less than the DLC rate on the agreement date.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to milk societies for milk price difference were not liable for TDS under Section 194H. This decision was based on the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own cases for various assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the date of the sale agreement, not the registration date, should be considered the purchase date for determining the holding period. The assessee had acquired an irrevocable right and constructive possession on the date of the agreement.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not vitiated by delay attributable to the assessee. However, it found that the transaction was a sale consideration for land and not a loan or advance, thus not falling under Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not aware of the income tax refund and the interest thereon as it was adjusted against outstanding demands without intimation. Therefore, the assessee acted bona fide and no penalty could be imposed for non-disclosure.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed merely on account of disallowance of a claim if all material facts were disclosed. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest by the AO under Section 154 was beyond his jurisdiction as the issue of allowability of interest was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. Furthermore, on merits, the interest expenditure was found to be allowable business expenditure of the joint venture.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest by the AO under Section 154 was beyond his jurisdiction as the issue of allowability of interest was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. Furthermore, on merits, the interest expenditure was found to be allowable business expenditure of the joint venture.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest by the AO under Section 154 was beyond his jurisdiction as the issue of allowability of interest was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. Furthermore, on merits, the interest expenditure was found to be allowable business expenditure of the joint venture.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the original assessment proceedings were not pending, no addition could be made under Section 153A. The appeal was allowed.
The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, directing that the assessee be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) within two months.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reassessment invalid because the AO lacked valid reasons for reopening after four years without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose fully. The Tribunal also ruled that the annual letting value of the property should be Nil due to its unauthorized construction and inability to be let out.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reassessment invalid because the AO lacked valid reasons for reopening after four years without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose fully. The Tribunal also ruled that the annual letting value of the property should be Nil due to its unauthorized construction and inability to be let out.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reassessment invalid because the AO lacked valid reasons for reopening after four years without evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose fully. The Tribunal also ruled that the annual letting value of the property should be Nil due to its unauthorized construction and inability to be let out.