Loading ITAT cases…
348 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Bombay, as well as previous orders of the Tribunal in similar cases.
The Tribunal decided the issue against the assessee, following previous orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal admitted the assessee's claim under Section 158A(3) and directed that the outcome would be subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on a similar issue.
The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the sale of shares should be assessed as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal found that the assessee held shares as investments, used her own funds, and the transactions, despite high volume, were not frequent enough to be considered trading.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS as the transactions occurred before the retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(vii) via Finance Act 2012, making it impossible to comply. The Tribunal followed previous co-ordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in relation to dividend received from trading shares, as such income is incidental to business. The STT paid was related to share trading business, not investment for earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the sale of shares should be assessed as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal found that the assessee held shares as investments, used her own funds, and the transactions, despite high volume, were not frequent enough to be considered trading.
The Tribunal held that without material purchases, execution of the work contract is not possible, and the fact of purchase cannot be denied even if the supplier is untraceable. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision for AY 2008-09, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. Specifically, the issue regarding shuttering material was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the sale of shares should be assessed as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal found that the assessee held shares as investments, used her own funds, and the transactions, despite high volume, were not frequent enough to be considered trading.
The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim for deduction of interest expenditure against house property income under Section 24. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was confirmed, but the deduction under Section 24 was to be considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS as the transactions occurred before the retrospective amendment to Section 9(1)(vii) via Finance Act 2012, making it impossible to comply. The Tribunal followed previous co-ordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be scaled down for shares held as stock-in-trade, restricting it to 5% of the calculated amount. It also allowed depreciation on leased assets and amortization of premium on securities, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that income from the sale of scrap is derived from the industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Sadhu Forging Ltd. The assessee's cross-objections were not pressed.
The Tribunal found significant factual contradictions and lack of clarity regarding the formation of the assessee's business, the transfer of assets, and the commencement of production. These aspects required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly appreciated the creation of goodwill. It set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to provide necessary details regarding goodwill valuation, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the nature of the assessee's activity and the objects of the company are crucial in determining the head of income. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Chennai Properties, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was made without proper satisfaction and directed a fresh assessment. The appeal of the Revenue regarding the taxability of foreign branch income was allowed, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was justified as the conditions for invoking Rule 8D were met. However, the BMC charges were held to be compensatory and allowable as business expenditure, leading to deletion of that addition.
The Tribunal held that under the mercantile system of accounting and the matching principle, the provision for estimated expenditure related to revenue already offered is allowable. The assessee is entitled to the deduction of the entire Rs. 1.25 crores.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the surrender under duress and the reconciliation of stock differences was plausible. It also noted that the CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by enhancing additions without providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be scaled down for shares held as stock-in-trade, restricting it to 5% of the calculated amount. It also allowed depreciation on leased assets and amortization of premium on securities, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the surrender under duress and the reconciliation of stock differences was plausible. It also noted that the CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by enhancing additions without providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found significant factual contradictions and lack of clarity regarding the formation of the assessee's business, the transfer of assets, and the commencement of production. These aspects required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to interest on refunds, following previous Special Bench and Gujarat High Court decisions. However, they are not entitled to interest on interest, as per Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the revision order was invalid because the CIT did not provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the specific ground of non-initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the AO has discretionary power to initiate penalty proceedings, which the CIT cannot compel.
The Tribunal held that for interest on foreign currency loans, LIBOR of Singapore should be considered instead of SBI PLR, and the addition should be restricted to the assessee's suo moto adjustment. It also allowed the issue regarding share premium and directed fresh examination for Section 14A disallowance. The AIR reconciliation issue was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding merit in the assessee's contention that the deposits represented business transactions. The sustained addition was also noted to be more than the normal profit rate for the business.
The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the sale of shares should be assessed as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal found that the assessee held shares as investments, used her own funds, and the transactions, despite high volume, were not frequent enough to be considered trading.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of BMC and customs charges, holding them to be compensatory and allowable as business expenditure. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld as the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions for invoking Rule 8D and admitted that some expenditure was attributable to earning exempt income.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (audited segmental P&L accounts) filed by the assessee and remanded the issues to the AO/TPO for de novo consideration. The Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the gains arising from the sale of shares should be assessed as capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal found that the assessee held shares as investments, used her own funds, and the transactions, despite high volume, were not frequent enough to be considered trading.
The Tribunal noted that the addition itself had been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty levied on that addition had no basis.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be worked out after considering losses from earlier years and that the assessee has the right to choose the initial assessment year for claiming the benefit. The disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that prior year losses or unabsorbed depreciation should not be set off against the eligible business income before calculating the deduction under Section 80IA. The deduction should be considered on a standalone basis.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions under Section 69C were deleted, the penalty levied on those additions also falls. Therefore, no interference was called for.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, already set off in earlier years, cannot be notionally re-set off against current year's income for computing deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions favouring the assessee on this point.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a suo moto disallowance and its method for calculating disallowance under Section 14A was supported by legal decisions. Therefore, it did not constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal estimated the rental income at Rs. 1,80,000, allowing a portion of the claimed expenses and directing the AO to grant eligible depreciation. The rental income was confirmed to be assessed under 'income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) should not be invoked as the interest expenses were not related to borrowed funds for investments. For clause (iii), the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the method adopted in the previous assessment year, restricting the disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the affidavit due to lack of evidence. However, considering the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the issue of peak credit to the AO for examination with supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction regarding the concealment of income during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the penalty order was passed without proper satisfaction and was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the entire gains should be treated as short-term capital gains, following the principle of consistency from a previous assessment year. The CIT(A)'s division of gains based on holding period was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not sustainable because the primary reason for reopening (Keyman Insurance) did not result in any addition. Consequently, any penalty levied based on these additions was also invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not sustainable because the primary reason for reopening (Keyman Insurance) did not result in any addition. Consequently, any penalty levied based on these additions was also invalid.
The Tribunal held that there was no transfer of capital asset by way of distribution to the retiring partners as the firm continued to exist and no asset went out of its books. Therefore, no capital gain is chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee firm.
The Tribunal set aside the issues of rejection of interest expenditure and interest liability under Section 115JB to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following its own prior decisions. The issue of computation of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was also set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication with specific directions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not sustainable because the primary reason for reopening (Keyman Insurance) did not result in any addition. Consequently, any penalty levied based on these additions was also invalid.
The Tribunal held that the omission was due to a bona fide and inadvertent error, not concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse Cooper (P) Ltd., the penalty was deleted.