Loading ITAT cases…
241 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal confirmed 100% depreciation on the water supply scheme, finding it eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA(4). However, it ruled that roads do not qualify for 100% depreciation and upheld the Assessing Officer's allowance of 10%.
The Tribunal confirmed 100% depreciation on the water supply scheme, finding it eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA(4). However, it ruled that roads do not qualify for 100% depreciation and upheld the Assessing Officer's allowance of 10%.
The Tribunal confirmed 100% depreciation on the water supply scheme, finding it eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA(4). However, it ruled that roads do not qualify for 100% depreciation and upheld the Assessing Officer's allowance of 10%.
The Tribunal held that if an assessment order is passed under Section 143(3) despite earlier non-compliance with notices, it implies subsequent compliance was accepted and earlier defaults were ignored. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.
The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper opportunity for hearing and that the Assessing Officer had not fully complied with the directions of the CIT under Section 263. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the total expenses debited in the Profit and Loss account. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 17,083/-, in addition to the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 5,442/-.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made primarily based on the statement of a third-party director without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine him. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an ex parte order passed without the assessee being heard violates natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal noted that a portion of the share application money pertained to a prior assessment year and agreed to its deletion. For the unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and that the lower authorities had not properly examined the evidence, leading to the deletion of the remaining addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities that the assessee failed to produce the necessary bills and vouchers. The disallowances were deemed reasonable, and the assessee was found to have not discharged its burden of proof.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper reasons. The reasons recorded by the AO were found to be vague and lacked the necessary 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), introduced by the Finance Act, 2014, is not retrospective in nature. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the assessment year 2012-13.
The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without proper justification are not sustainable. They allowed the entire claim for discounts as business expenditure, noting consistency in the percentage of discounts to sales over the years. The disallowance of collection charges was also set aside as verification difficulties do not justify disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 5,10,242/-, based on the principle that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A are not applicable for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CIT(A) under Section 69 was based on conjecture and surmises, without any evidence or verification of the assessee's books of accounts. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground of appeal, which argued that traveling expenses directly attributable to taxable income should not be subject to disallowance under Section 14A. The matter was remanded to the AO to compute the disallowance based on investments yielding exempt income, following the decision in REI Agro Ltd.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the reasoning that the loans and advances were genuine after considering the evidence presented. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's presumption that borrowed funds were used for non-income-yielding advances was incorrect, as the assessee had sufficient own capital and free reserves to cover these advances. The disallowance of interest was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the shares were held as stock-in-trade and the assessee's primary object was business income, Section 14A r.w.r. 8D was not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for bonus and leave salary was rightly claimed in AY 2012-13 as the conditions for the proviso to Section 43B were not met. However, the addition on account of Form 26AS was upheld as the assessee could not reconcile the discrepancy.
The Tribunal noted the consistent non-appearance of the assessee. Citing legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in placing the burden of proof on the assessee to prove he did not open the accounts. When the assessee denied opening the accounts and filed a civil suit alleging fraud, the revenue should have investigated.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in placing the burden of proof on the assessee to prove he did not open the accounts. The revenue should have investigated and gathered evidence to disprove the assessee's claim of fraud.
The Tribunal held that 100% depreciation is allowable on the water supply scheme as it constitutes machinery and plant for providing infrastructure facilities. However, for roads, only 10% depreciation is allowable as they do not fall under the specific categories for higher depreciation.
The Tribunal confirmed 100% depreciation on the water supply scheme, finding it eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA(4). However, it ruled that roads do not qualify for 100% depreciation and upheld the Assessing Officer's allowance of 10%.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) relied on general reports and circumstantial evidence without confronting the assessee with specific material. Since the assessee provided overwhelming and unchallenged evidence of the transaction's genuineness, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the case on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the addition on account of cess on green leaf, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs A.F.T. Industries Ltd. The ground related to TDS credit was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the appeal effectively. The assessee was advised to file an application for recalling the order if there was a just cause.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee had sufficient own funds for its investments. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to consider only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), it directed the AO to consider only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt dividend income of Rs. 17,808/-.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and the ex-parte order was passed. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal followed a precedent where a similar manually filed appeal was set aside. It directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically and the CIT(A) to decide it on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The tribunal held that donations and subscriptions in the nature of 'Chanda' are allowable if they are necessary for the smooth functioning of business, following a High Court precedent. Ad hoc disallowances of business expenses without rejecting books of account were deemed arbitrary and deleted. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS was deleted as the assessee had furnished Form 15G, indicating no tax was deductible.
The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, to ensure natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bills, cheque payments, and TDS, and that the parties had appeared and confirmed transactions. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that if the income from the sale of plots is assessed as business income, Section 50C does not apply. Furthermore, even if considered a capital asset, the sale of 'rights in immovable property' rather than the land itself means Section 50C is inapplicable.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and did not address the merits of the case. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal acknowledged the error in the previously issued order regarding the PAN number. It was decided to correct the PAN number to reflect the correct details of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without giving a proper opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice principles. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. As the tax effect in the appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed in limine.
The tribunal held that the respondent's name was incorrectly typed as 'M/s. Selvel Advertising Private Limited' instead of 'M/s. Pressman Realty Ltd.'. This error was corrected in the official record.
The tribunal reviewed the order and found that the assessee's appeal was actually dismissed. The correction was made to reflect the correct outcome.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. As the tax effect in the appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) and the lower Tribunal followed well-accepted principles regarding Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.