Loading ITAT cases…
348 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt and not taxable as income. However, it directed that this amount should be reduced from the cost of acquisition of the new flat for future capital gains computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, including photocopies of seized documents, as the assessee's inability to produce originals was due to DRI seizure. The disallowances were deleted after verification in remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) passed their orders without proper application of mind and in haste, ignoring the tenets of equity and justice. The Tribunal directed the admission of additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that Section 54EC exemption is based on actual investment, not deemed consideration under Section 50C. The deeming fiction of Section 50C cannot be imported into Section 54EC for granting exemption.
The Tribunal held that the second reopening of assessment was valid as the first was dropped on a technical ground. However, the disallowances for non-deduction of TDS were restored to the AO for re-examination, while the disallowance of travelling expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the second reopening of assessment was valid as the first was dropped on a technical ground. However, the disallowances for non-deduction of TDS were restored to the AO for re-examination, while the disallowance of travelling expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to intermediaries for carriage of goods constituted a contract covered under Section 194C. Therefore, the assessee was liable to deduct TDS, and the AO was justified in disallowing the expenses.
The Tribunal held that the arm's length mark-up determined under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) for a significant portion of transactions should also be applied to the remaining transactions, as no distinction was made by the authorities. It also followed its previous order regarding unabsorbed depreciation and business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the salary disallowance requires further inquiry and restored the matter to the AO for de novo consideration. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the party from whom Rs. 5,00,000/- was received.
The Tribunal held that while the primary onus is on the assessee, in this case, after the assessee discharged its initial burden, the onus shifted to the AO to prove the transactions were not genuine. The Tribunal noted the significant time lapse between the transaction and the request for production of shareholders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in splitting the life membership fees in a 20:80 ratio, as this ratio was not laid down by the Bombay High Court. The decision of the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee was upheld.
The Tribunal held that assessing income found during search and seizure in the current year, when the source was already assessed year-wise, would lead to double taxation. Therefore, a reduction was allowed in the current year's assessment.
The tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was factually unsustainable and lacked convincing justification or basis. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that assessing income found during search and seizure in the current year, when the source was already assessed year-wise, would lead to double taxation. Therefore, a reduction was allowed in the current year's assessment.
The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessment has attained finality and has not abated, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was unsustainable and illegal. This was primarily because the AO failed to provide a speaking order to dispose of the assessee's objections as directed by the Tribunal in the first round, and the reasons for reopening were based on a change of opinion without fresh tangible material.
The Tribunal found a clear violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as additional evidence was admitted and considered without proper justification or confrontation to the AO. To meet the ends of justice, the issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the genuineness of the transactions and the valuation of shares, especially given the involvement of closely knit companies. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee acted as an independent broker and not an agent. Therefore, the provisions related to tax deduction at source were not applicable, and the assessee was not in default.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee acted as an independent broker and not an agent. Therefore, the provisions related to tax deduction at source were not applicable, and the assessee was not in default.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights, as it pertains to land or building ownership. Therefore, capital gains should be calculated on the actual sale consideration received by the assessee.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee's books of accounts were unreliable and rejected them. However, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of GP ratio at 20% lacked proper basis and remanded the matter for re-estimation.
The Tribunal held that the arm's length mark-up determined under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) for a significant portion of transactions should also be applied to the remaining transactions, as no distinction was made by the authorities. It also followed its previous order regarding unabsorbed depreciation and business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not genuine or bona fide. Consequently, the appeal was considered unadmitted and dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that Section 54EC exemption is based on actual investment, not deemed consideration under Section 50C. The deeming fiction of Section 50C cannot be imported into Section 54EC for granting exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee acted as an independent broker and not an agent. Therefore, the provisions related to tax deduction at source were not applicable, and the assessee was not in default.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the HUF had provided sufficient evidence for the cash deposits from its members. For the cash credit, the Tribunal agreed that the HUF could not be penalized for the creditor's alleged lack of capacity, especially when the creditor's identity and transaction genuineness were not disputed.
The Tribunal held that assessing income found during search and seizure in the current year, when the source was already assessed year-wise, would lead to double taxation. Therefore, a reduction was allowed in the current year's assessment.
The Tribunal held that in cases where the assessment has attained finality and has not abated, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that a liability shown in the balance sheet cannot be disallowed as income. It further noted that the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish a debt, especially when legal actions like FIRs and notices indicate the liability still exists. The decisions relied upon by the CIT(A) were found to be not in consonance with the facts.
The tribunal held that interest income is not derived from industrial activity and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB, following the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India. Foreign exchange gains and income from scrap sales were held to be eligible for inclusion.
The Tribunal held that the absence of significant activities at the commencement stage does not disentitle a trust from obtaining registration. The primary criterion should be the charitable nature of the trust's objects. The Tribunal noted that the trust had already commenced activities by constructing a cowshed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It was held that the issue was debatable and the assessee had a bona fide belief, thus not amounting to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The tribunal held that interest income is not derived from industrial activity and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB, following the Supreme Court's decision in Liberty India. Foreign exchange gains and income from scrap sales were held to be eligible for inclusion.
The Tribunal held that payments made to the old developer and tenant for surrendering their rights were deductible. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to adopt the indexed cost of acquisition with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset (1/4/1981).
The Tribunal restored the issue of transaction charges to the AO for verification of tax payment by BSE. The brokerage income issue was also restored to the AO for the assessee to establish its claim with audited accounts. The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not bad in law due to the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). Regarding the cash deposits, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of cash-in-hand and temporary loans to be unsubstantiated and unproved.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish with documentary proof that the slow-moving/obsolete stock was actually destroyed. Therefore, the claim for write-off was rejected, and the addition to book profits under Section 115JB was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided loan confirmation and the creditor's PAN card, and an affidavit from the creditor confirming the transaction. The Revenue failed to bring anything on record to contradict the assessee's contentions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the transaction of purchase and sale of shares, including physical delivery, company transfer, dematerialization, and sale proceeds received by 'A/c payee cheque'. The AO's suspicion was not sufficient to disbelieve the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the plot area should be considered for the entire project, including amenity space and surrendered land, and that the built-up area calculation should not exclude balconies for projects approved before the amendment. Proportionate deduction is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the capital subsidy was a capital receipt and not taxable. It further clarified that Section 41(1) and Section 50 of the Income Tax Act were not applicable in this case.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to amounts payable as of March 31st and not to amounts already paid during the financial year, even if TDS was deducted late. Therefore, no disallowance could be made.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the addition under Section 50C did not constitute concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The capital gains were assessed at a higher rate due to the applicability of Section 50C.
The Tribunal held that the expenses disallowed by the AO were not directly relatable to the earning of exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that for vacant flats, the Annual Letting Value (ALV) should be taken at the municipal ratable value, as supported by High Court decisions. Additions for undisclosed investments in land were deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond suspicion.
The Tribunal held that for vacant flats, the Annual Letting Value (ALV) should be taken at the municipal ratable value, as supported by High Court decisions. Additions for undisclosed investments in land were deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond suspicion.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the disallowance of purchases where the assessee failed to produce evidence or obtain confirmations from the concerned parties. Relief was granted only for purchases where evidence was produced or tallied with information received.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2011 for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the shares were investments, not stock-in-trade, and thus the revaluation loss was not allowable. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing interest expenditure against property income.