Loading ITAT cases…
165 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that agricultural land is a capital asset only if it falls within the specified limits of a notified municipality. Since the land in question was more than 8 KMs away from the notified Kalyani Municipality, the short-term capital gain was exempt from tax.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's absence before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, directing the assessee to attend sincerely.
The Tribunal found that the assessee presented a different plea before it compared to the AO. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity by restoring the file to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that export incentives should be considered for Section 80HHC deduction. The retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC(3) was also held to be invalid for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that executing a power of attorney is a debatable issue regarding 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Act. The disclosure in the balance sheet indicated no intention to conceal income, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that share application money, which is merely an offer to buy shares, should not be included in the average value of investments for calculating disallowance under Section 14A as it does not confer rights of a shareholder or entitlement to dividends. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, remanding other grounds for fresh examination.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it was jurisdictional and facts were available. It held that the addition for undisclosed investment in the purchase of property should have been made in the previous year 2007-08, relevant to AY 2008-09, not AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it was jurisdictional and facts were available. It held that the addition for undisclosed investment in the purchase of property should have been made in the previous year 2007-08, relevant to AY 2008-09, not AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal held that the AO's initiation of penalty proceedings lacked specific satisfaction regarding concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that blending of tea by the assessee qualifies for exemption under Section 10B, following a Special Bench decision. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance of commission payments, relying on a jurisdictional High Court ruling regarding business expediency and legality of such payments.
The Tribunal held that the ITAT has the power to entertain a claim for deduction even without a revised return. It also confirmed that deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) is allowable to an approved institution like IIT Madras, and the existing notification for IIT Madras remains valid.
The Tribunal noted the non-participation of the assessee and the inability to serve notices. To ensure fairness, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the advances were genuine trading receipts, part of the sale consideration, and properly adjusted against sales. The AO and CIT(A) erred in treating these advances as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that payments for advertising and professional services are covered under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS non-deduction, following a Calcutta High Court decision. However, it also considered the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) regarding tax payment by the recipient, remanding the issue for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty under Section 271C. It found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS under Section 194D, as they acted on the advice of an advocate after reviewing the agreement, which constituted a genuine belief.