Loading ITAT cases…
99 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already paid capital gains tax in preceding years on the portion of the property handed over by the developer. Therefore, taxing the same income again in assessment year 2012-13 would amount to double taxation. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the set-off of derivative loss against the addition made under Section 68. It held that the credited amount could be treated as business receipts, supported by Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the bad debts claim, holding that the write-off was ratified in the relevant accounting period and the amount was treated as a revenue item. The prior period expenses claim was also allowed based on the receipt of invoices in the relevant year and High Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to employee's contribution to welfare funds and Section 14A disallowance, finding no infirmity in the lower appellate authority's order. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to establish any failure on the assessee's part to disclose material particulars. Disclosure in the notes to accounts does not constitute a failure to disclose fully and truly.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the Supreme Court's decision in Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT, held that provision for NPA made in terms of RBI directions is not an allowable deduction. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the set-off of derivative loss against the addition made under Section 68. It held that the credited amount could be treated as business receipts, supported by Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions.
The Tribunal deleted disallowances related to proportionate interest, bad debts, club expenses, subscriptions, alleged capital expenses, and liquidated damages. The issue of MAT credit was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition. The CIT(A) estimated undisclosed investment in undisclosed sales and added the profit on such sales, which the Tribunal found to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the currency derivative transactions were carried out through a member of a recognized stock exchange (MCX Stock Exchange Ltd.) and thus fell under the exception provided in Section 43(5)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the loss was not speculative.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to non-receipt of notices. The CIT(Appeals)'s orders were also found to be non-compliant with statutory requirements.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matters were restored to the AO for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce challans.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to non-receipt of notices. The CIT(Appeals)'s orders also lacked the required format and reasoning as per Section 250(6).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matters were restored to the AO for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce challans.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 and cooperating fully.
The Tribunal found that there was a sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not made a specific finding on whether the society's predominant activity involved profit-making. It also noted that commencement of charitable activities is not a mandatory condition for 12AA registration.
The Tribunal held that since clause (i) of section 92BA was unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, it was as if the provision never existed. Therefore, the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263, making the order void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the de-merger expenses are eligible for amortization under Section 35DD. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the de-merger expenses are eligible for amortization under Section 35DD. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as the assessee's omission was not willful or unreasonable, and the data was necessary for adjudication. The Tribunal also directed the AO/TPO to allow deduction under Section 10A for interest income on fixed deposits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the nature of the transactions and the business activities of the subsidiary companies. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed on a non-existent entity is invalid. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the amalgamation and the principle of substantive justice.
The Tribunal decided to allow the assessee one more opportunity to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers by producing their directors before the AO. The issue is restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal noted that the funds received were for margin money for derivative transactions and the assessee did not have access to these funds for personal use.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT lacked territorial jurisdiction to initiate revision proceedings. Furthermore, even on merits, the Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and accepted the long-term capital gains based on overwhelming evidence, thus the revision order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the de-merger expenses are eligible for amortization under Section 35DD. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the non-compliance before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the non-compliance before the CIT(A) due to the company's internal issues. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO is to verify if the assessee paid the employees' contribution from its own account without recovering it from employees.
The Tribunal held that since clause (i) of section 92BA was unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, it was as if the provision never existed. Therefore, the PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263, making the order void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-compliance as the notices were not received. Additionally, the CIT(Appeals)'s order lacked the required format and reasoning as per Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show-cause notice under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal found a fallacy in the Assessing Officer's basis for additions, as he compared figures from different periods and entities. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-compliance due to non-receipt of notices. The CIT(A)'s order also lacked the required written reasoning. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and without considering their written submissions. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-compliance, supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged his primary onus by providing evidence for the sale of ancestral property and the gift from his mother. The AO failed to provide contrary evidence, making the addition based on surmises. The existing cash balance was also deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal held that Form 26AS, maintained by the Income Tax Department, should be relied upon for determining the assessee's income from commission, as it showed a different figure than the TDS certificate. For unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal directed that the amount already considered as income from commission should be telescoped with the cash deposit.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for interest on late TDS payment. For club expenses, 50% was allowed as business expenditure, and the rest was disallowed. The disallowance on travelling expenses was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for purchases, the AO accepted the sales figures. Therefore, disallowing the entire purchase amount was incorrect. The Tribunal directed an addition of profit at 4% on the disputed purchase amount.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation at 40% on hoardings based on consistency in earlier years. However, it upheld the disallowance of higher depreciation on the mobile display car, as it was not used for running on hire.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to prove the nexus of the interest claim with his business income. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the issue afresh.
The Tribunal followed its previous order for AY 1995-96, which held that the purposes mentioned in Form 10 were specific enough. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the exemption claim.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that it was not given a proper opportunity to justify the share premium and produce the shareholder. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was unsustainable as the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was neither issued nor served upon the assessee. Consequently, the AO lacked jurisdiction to frame the reassessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to decide the taxability of the amount after considering the decision of the Company Law Board regarding its nature.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the valuation report was filed for the first time before the CIT(Appeals) and the AO had not examined it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.