Loading ITAT cases…
188 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that Section 14A has no application in computing expenditure for earning long-term capital gains which are not exempt under Section 115JB. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the amount computed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct a proper inquiry empowers the CIT to revise the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding it not based on irrelevant considerations and that the AO's inadequate inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders where the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's orders, finding them to be based on valid grounds and within the prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance with notices was due to the firm shutting down its business and undergoing dissolution formalities, leading to its office being open only intermittently. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 73,556/- under Section 194J and Rs. 1,20,961/- under Section 194C for delayed TDS deposit was justified. However, the further addition of Rs. 9,38,408/- made by the AO by calculating backwards was deleted based on legal and factual positions, including retrospective amendment of Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that provisions for gratuity, calculated on actuarial valuation, are not unascertained liabilities and should not be added back to book profit. The Tribunal also followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision regarding the set-off of business loss/depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the payment was by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by CECO on behalf of the assessee. Relying on previous judgments, it was held that no TDS is required on mere reimbursement of expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) due to a change of address. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of flats was completed in the year under consideration as per the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, making the capital gain taxable in that year. The issue of brokerage expenses was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to his wife's illness, as supported by previous ITAT orders. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the forfeited amount of share warrants was a capital receipt and not revenue income. The AO had failed to discharge the burden of proving the receipt was revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable even if shares are held as stock-in-trade. However, the disallowance should be computed by considering only those shares that yielded dividend income in the relevant year.
The Tribunal noted that the AO confirmed the assessee's share in the property at Rs. 22,25,225.00. The facts indicate a potential fraud on government revenue by not declaring the building at the time of registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's rejoinder to the remand report, which violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have ensured proper service of notices to the assessee, especially considering the principle of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was based on surmise and conjecture, as the CIT(A) himself was not certain about the assessee routing undisclosed money. Relying on case law, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the bad debts in the current year when the recovery was offered for taxation in a subsequent year would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the bad debts claim should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that provisions for gratuity, calculated on actuarial valuation, are not unascertained liabilities and should not be added back to book profit. The Tribunal also followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision regarding the set-off of business loss/depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS needs re-examination, especially considering the assessee's claim of reimbursement. The issue of unexplained investment under Section 69 was also remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the consistent absence of the assessee and concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on merits to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the provision for leave encashment paid before the due date of filing the return is deductible, and the requirement to furnish evidence with the return is directory. For doubtful debts, the Tribunal found it was actually a write-off of bad debts and should be excluded from book profit computation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was directed to be cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to conduct a proper inquiry regarding share capital received at a premium empowers the CIT to revise the assessment order under section 263. The CIT can direct the AO to conduct a thorough inquiry, as inadequate inquiry is akin to no inquiry.
The Tribunal held that interest on a subsequent loan taken to repay an original loan for property acquisition is eligible for deduction under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act. The explanation to Section 24(b) clarifies that a new loan taken to repay an old loan is covered.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of distribution charges was excessive and directed the AO to re-examine it. Regarding the cash loss due to fire, the Tribunal found the AO's approach improper and directed the AO to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were in the nature of capital receipts, not chargeable to tax. The CIT(A)'s order treating them as capital subsidies was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing relevant case law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT had the power to revise the assessment order under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was not proper or logical. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, finding them to be in line with previous decisions on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that failure to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, despite a specific request, vitiates the reopening. Consequently, the reassessment order cannot be upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT had the power to revise the assessment order under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was not proper or logical. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, finding them to be in line with previous decisions on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (CIT) correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO's inquiry into the share capital transaction was not proper or thorough, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee, to the extent claimed as deduction, helped its sales and was not solely for creating brand value for the licensor. The tribunal also noted that similar claims were allowed in other assessment years and directed that the deduction claimed by the assessee should be allowed as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the revision order passed by the CIT under section 263 was quashed by a previous order of the same Tribunal. Consequently, the subsequent assessment and appellate proceedings initiated based on the section 263 order became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Kolkata Port Trust is a 'local authority' as per the General Clauses Act, even though its exemption under Section 10(20) was withdrawn from AY 2003-04. This decision was based on a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the deposit made by the assessee was within the time limit specified in Section 54G(2) of the Act, considering the extended period for filing returns under Section 139(4) or (5). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the payment for the software license was not royalty but business income. Since the non-resident company had no Permanent Establishment in India, the payment was not taxable in India.