Loading ITAT cases…
288 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal found that only ₹3,55,000/- were actual deposits, with other sums being banking transfers. While rejecting the assessee's claim of no cash drawings, the Tribunal made a lump sum addition of ₹2,00,000/- as unexplained investment on estimation.
The Tribunal held that additions should be based on evidence, not generalizations or suspicion. Since the revenue authorities relied on a general report without confronting the assessee with specific material, and the assessee's evidence remained unchallenged, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper verification and relied solely on general inferences. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable when shares are allotted for consideration other than cash, such as in a share-swapping arrangement. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's dividend income was ₹80,318/-. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Joint Investment Ltd., the tribunal restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The AO's addition was based on general observations and lacked specific adverse material.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding all three grounds of appeal. The disallowance on travelling expenses was upheld as restricted by the CIT(A), the addition on account of unexplained cash credit was deleted as the assessee had discharged its onus, and the addition under Section 14A was deleted as the CIT(A) found the assessee's disallowance sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the expenditure was proved as the sub-contractors confirmed the transactions and were assessed by the same AO. It was also found that payments did not exceed Rs. 20,000 in a single day to any sub-contractor, thus not violating Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO. The AO failed to provide evidence that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and necessarily for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss for AY 2009-10 was not allowable as a business expenditure. However, for AY 2010-11, the premium on FCCB bonds was allowed as a deduction on a pro-rata basis. Disallowance under Section 14A was also upheld.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee to settle disputes and facilitate the transfer of the capital asset is deductible under Section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that sufficient opportunities were given, as there was no proof of notice service or adjudication on merits. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance and the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal rectified the typographical error in its previous order. The assessment year for the appeal was corrected from 2011-12 to 2012-13. The order was amended accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. As the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was filed contrary to the Department's policy.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and passed without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that summons issued to investors remained unreplied and that similar issues in related cases were remitted back to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders below and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of LTCG from share transfers had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench decision. Therefore, the Tribunal followed the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in changing the tax rate while giving effect to the appellate order, as the tax rate was not in dispute and the AO's scope was limited to implementing the appellate decision. The Tribunal found an apparent mistake in the AO's order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly explained as partner's capital contribution, as evidenced by the partner's balance sheet and income tax return. The rejection of the explanation solely on the basis of cash contribution instead of cheque was unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the disallowance of loss. It noted that the broker's director's statement did not name the assessee and that the assessee had provided supporting evidence, including affidavits retracting the earlier statement.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation as the assessee had not claimed it as expenditure. Regarding interest expenditure, the tribunal noted that the issue was still alive before the Assessing Officer for further verification and adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it not deliberate. It restored the sole issue back to the Assessing Officer for factual reconciliation of figures between the assessee's computation and Form-26AS, after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the value of closing stock, as adjusted by the addition of the disallowed write-off, should automatically be carried forward as the opening stock for the subsequent year. This adjustment is necessary to reflect the actual value of inventory until the stock is sold.
The Tribunal allowed the claims for repairs as revenue expenditure, finding no capital nature and that lower authorities erred by solely relying on written down value. The bonus disallowance was deleted as actual payment was made. The issue regarding Rule 8 was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not sustainable in the absence of any exempt income. It also held that disallowance of employer's contribution to ESI is not sustainable if deposited before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG on transfer of shares had been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in a co-ordinate bench's decision. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal directed that the corrigendum should be read along with the appellate order previously disposed of on 16.10.2018. The petition filed by the assessee praying for the issue of a corrigendum was allowed.
The Tribunal directed that the corrigendum should be read along with the appellate order previously disposed of on 16.10.2018. The petition filed by the assessee praying for the issue of a corrigendum was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not want to proceed with the appeal and had requested to withdraw it. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal as not pressed.
The Tribunal directed that the corrigendum should be read along with the appellate order previously disposed of on 16.10.2018. The petition filed by the assessee praying for the issue of a corrigendum was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that prior period expenses were crystallized in the relevant year and ERPC charges were statutory. The interest income from SLDC UI Fund was also held to belong to WBERC and not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-interest bearing funds exceeded the non-business investments. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., the Tribunal presumed the investments were made from non-interest bearing funds.