Loading ITAT cases…
470 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, finding that investments were made from own funds and that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding aircraft flying rights charges, reversing the CIT(A)'s order, but dismissed the appeal concerning puja and temple expenses.
The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by an unauthorized person, without any corroborative evidence, does not have evidentiary value. Therefore, the addition made by the AO based solely on this statement was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance. It noted that the assessee's claim for liability debited in the Profit and Loss Account was accepted in prior and subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) applies to expenses, not advances. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 25 lakhs was unwarranted and deleted. Another addition of Rs. 1,53,118 was remanded to the AO for fresh verification due to lack of details.
The Tribunal held that the term 'concern' in Section 13(3) could include a trust. It remanded the issue to the AO to verify if the secretary, individually or with relatives, held a substantial interest (over 20% of profits) in the recipient trusts, which would lead to a violation of Section 13.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, agreeing that the deposits and withdrawals represented trading receipts. The CIT(A) had estimated a net profit of 5% on these receipts, which the Tribunal found reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly disallowed Rs. 11,84,821/- as this issue was not before him and was done without notice to the assessee. Therefore, this disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the case. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed in limine for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that cash payments made to a government agent, when such payments are made in legal tender under the rules framed by the government, are covered by the exception provided under Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given liberty to file all relevant evidence.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits and that the assessee had not clearly presented the quantum of disputed interest. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order was erroneous as the sale agreement clearly indicated that the consideration was for both the plant and machinery and the Capital WIP. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted the assessee's computation of loss, making the Pr. CIT's revisionary jurisdiction untenable.
The Tribunal held that the security deposits, whether from IIFL or ONGC, could not be brought to tax in the impugned assessment year. The deposits were not advance rent and were to be adjusted at the end of the lease period.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as exceptional circumstances were proven, and allowed the disallowance of puja expenses. However, it dismissed grounds related to telephone charges, general expenses, and interest on TDS.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal is deciding on whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO by adopting the value under Section 50C. The specific decision of the Tribunal is not fully provided in the excerpt.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte and, in the interest of justice, remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not adjudicated the appeals on merits and that the assessee had not clearly presented the quantum of disputed interest. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution due to the assessee's lack of cooperation.