Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). The ex parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular is binding on tax authorities and applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) cannot be retrospective and that the CIT's second ground was based on facts already considered by the Assessing Officer without any demonstrable error or prejudice to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the AO had not complied with the directions issued by the CIT under Section 263 for a fresh assessment, and the assessee had provided necessary details regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the 'Enclosed Withering Trough Machines' at a higher rate, finding them to be energy-saving devices. It also allowed depreciation on goodwill, considering it a quantifiable intangible asset.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report of the assessee was based on proper comparables and upheld the fair market value determined by the valuer, thereby deleting the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib). The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Rs. 50 lakh was an estimated income and depreciation had to be allowed on the actual income, which exceeded the estimate. The assessee had declared more actual income than the estimated amount.
The Tribunal held that the payments were not for services rendered by HWML but represented a transfer of rights to supply water and collect charges. Therefore, Section 194J was not applicable, and no tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report of the assessee was based on proper comparables and upheld the fair market value determined by the valuer, thereby deleting the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib). The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144, the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the 'Enclosed Withering Trough Machines' at a higher rate, finding them to be energy-saving devices. It also allowed depreciation on goodwill, considering it a quantifiable intangible asset.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the 'Enclosed Withering Trough Machines' at a higher rate, finding them to be energy-saving devices. It also allowed depreciation on goodwill, considering it a quantifiable intangible asset.
The Tribunal held that the payments were not for services rendered by HWML but represented a transfer of rights to supply water and collect charges. Therefore, Section 194J was not applicable, and no tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for 'Baksis & Tips' as an allowable expenditure. It also allowed the amortisation of premium on securities and deleted the addition for fraudulent withdrawals and provision for gratuity. However, the issue of disallowance of interest paid on securities was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal. While agreeing with the CIT(A) that rental income from sub-letting is business income, it modified the disallowance on business promotion expenses and confirmed the disallowance on administrative expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to treating share profit as business income, directing the AO to amend the order based on a pending High Court decision. It confirmed the Section 14A disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- as reasonable, considering both dividend and long-term capital gains. Consequential relief for interest under Sections 234B and 234D was directed.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 143(2) was not valid as the Assessing Officer failed to prove that Amit Goursaria was authorized to receive the notice on behalf of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 144 was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by HDA to HWML were not for services rendered by HWML, but rather a transfer of HDA's right to supply water and collect charges. Therefore, Section 194J was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) cannot be retrospective and that the CIT's second ground was based on facts already considered by the Assessing Officer without any demonstrable error or prejudice to revenue.
The Tribunal held that electrical installation charges and club membership fees are integral parts of the housing project and eligible for deduction. It also found that the amendment to Section 80IB(10) was not applicable to the assessee's case as the project was sanctioned prior to the amendment.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). The ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payments were not for services rendered by HWML but represented a transfer of rights to supply water and collect charges. Therefore, Section 194J was not applicable, and no tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that the commission recipients confirmed receipt, and while some initial discrepancies existed, they were satisfactorily explained, establishing the genuineness of the payments.
The Tribunal followed its own previous order for a subsequent assessment year where a similar retainership fee was held not to be an expenditure for earning tax-free income. The Tribunal directed deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a conduit for payments to third-party service providers and not the ultimate recipient of the service income. Therefore, the sums in question could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a conduit for payments to third-party service providers and not the ultimate recipient of the service income. Therefore, the sums in question could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee for channel carriage, up-linking, and airtime charges were covered under Section 194C and not Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for short deduction of tax.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D does not apply to shares held as stock-in-trade. For investments held as investments, it was observed that the assessee had sufficient own funds and that only dividend-bearing scrips should be considered for disallowance calculation.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) due to it being an ex parte order and a violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the expenses were incurred for business purposes, reimbursed by the employer, and covered under the company's FBT return, they could not be treated as perquisites in the hands of the employee. Therefore, no addition should be made in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that service charges received for providing contractual services and amenities to tenants are assessable as business income, not income from house property. This was based on the separate consideration charged and the nature of services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach was too technical and that the assessee should be allowed to rectify the typographical error in Form 35. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after allowing amendment and considering any delay.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that advances to M/s NLBD Marketing Pvt. Ltd. were for business purposes, following a previous decision for an earlier assessment year. For M/s Phool Commercial Pvt. Ltd., partial disallowance of interest was upheld based on the CIT(A)'s directions.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D does not apply to shares held as stock-in-trade. For investments held as investments, it was found that the assessee had sufficient own funds and no disallowance could be made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider dividend-bearing scrips.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee and providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed without hearing the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO to re-adjudicate the issue after considering the assessee's claim of excess TDS deposit.
The Tribunal noted that the order was ex parte and the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO's nor the CIT(A)'s reasoning was fully justifiable. The Tribunal noted missing basic information regarding rental income and agreements with service providers. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that, following Supreme Court decisions on Section 10A (analogous to 10B), brought forward unabsorbed depreciation should not be set off against the current year's profit of the eligible unit before allowing the Section 10B deduction.
The Tribunal held that a portion of the interest on borrowed funds used for the construction of the cinema hall should be capitalized as per the proviso to Section 36(1)(iii). Regarding amusement tax, the Tribunal held that the increase in the liability during the year constituted a trading receipt, but a deduction was allowed for the amount remitted before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on interest-free advances as the assessee derived benefits in subsequent years. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowances for non-deduction of TDS on repairs and maintenance, as the payments were reimbursements on a cost-to-cost basis.
The CIT(A) adjusted the gross profit of the current and earlier years to the peak of the current year and directed the AO to use the adjusted peaks for computing income from undisclosed accounts. The Tribunal confirmed this order.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 153A when no incriminating material was found during the search related to the share capital. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants.
The Tribunal held that service charges received for providing contractual services and amenities to tenants are assessable as business income, not income from house property. This was based on the separate consideration charged and the nature of services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a conduit for payments to third-party service providers and not the ultimate recipient of the service income. Therefore, the sums in question could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal by adjusting the gross profit of current and earlier years to the peak of the current year, directing the AO to use the adjusted peaks. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.