Loading ITAT cases…
498 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that the rental income should be assessed as business income and depreciation allowed, following the principle of consistency from earlier years. Similarly, income from finance activities was to be treated as business income, and related expenses allowed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order of the ITAT had already set aside the revision order of the CIT. Consequently, the fresh assessment order made by the AO became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of calculating the cost of acquisition based on the written down value of the previous owner was incorrect. It directed the AO to adopt a cost of acquisition of Rs. 42 lakh, considering the valuation report and the passage of time.
The Tribunal directed the AO to accept the opening cash balance and set off cash withdrawn from banks against deposits. It rejected claims for friendly loans and gifts but accepted income from freelancing. The addition for foreign travel expenditure was deleted as payments were made by cheque.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on procedural grounds and that the issue of tax liability borne by the appellant needed re-examination. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier year. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to rework the disallowance under Section 14A based on the earlier precedent.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was bad in law as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and it was done after the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal also affirmed that the assessee is entitled to the rebate under section 88E even when income is assessed under section 115JB.
The CIT(A) allowed the rebate under Section 88E even when tax liability was computed under Section 115JB, relying on High Court and ITAT decisions. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked in cases of short TDS deduction, following High Court precedents. The issue regarding the applicability of Section 194C versus 194J was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in an earlier year. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to rework the disallowance under Section 14A based on the earlier precedent.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the assessee voluntarily disclosed the transaction in the revised return and the notices issued did not specifically point out the omission of short-term capital gains. There was no clear intention to conceal income to evade tax.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the retiring partner on relinquishing his share in favour of continuing partners constitutes a transfer, giving rise to capital gains. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Supreme Court judgments that dealt with dissolution or where no specific transfer was evident.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to disallow the loss under Section 94(7) was a bona fide mistake, especially considering the return form did not have a specific column for such transactions at that time. Merely making a claim that was not sustainable in law does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was neither income from other sources nor taxable as capital gains. It was compensation for hardship and displacement for alternative accommodation, and there was no actual gain to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach for bona fide reasons. It then remanded the penalty issue back to the Assessing Officer to be decided after the Hon'ble High Court's decision on the quantum addition, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of excess interest paid to related parties under Section 40A(2)(b), finding no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' factual findings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of excess interest paid to related parties under Section 40A(2)(b), finding no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of excess interest paid to related parties under Section 40A(2)(b), finding no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on the disallowance of excess interest paid to related parties under Section 40A(2)(b), finding no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities unjustly rejected the assessee's explanation that the amount was a gift from her husband in earlier years, not a loan. The gift confirmation should have been considered.
The Tribunal found that the trust had amended its Memorandum of Association to remove the objectionable clauses, addressing the DIT(E)'s concerns. Therefore, the DIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the application was restored for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the AO and FAA did not adequately consider the assessee's claim of taking loans to earn interest income. The matter requires further verification due to discrepancies in balance sheet entries.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for bad debts by considering the opening balance of provisions. It also upheld the disallowance of 1% of dividend income as per previous orders and decided other grounds based on earlier pronouncements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54F for only one residential house, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities. The Tribunal also confirmed that the income from the agricultural land would be taxed as income from other sources due to insufficient evidence of agricultural operations.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made for shares held as stock-in-trade, following High Court precedents. The disallowance related to personal investments was also upheld as reasonable based on the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A is allowable on refundable taxes after giving credit of brought forward MAT. It also held that MAT credit is to be given from the gross demand before charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C.
The Tribunal held that since the underlying addition in the quantum assessment proceedings was deleted, the penalty levied under section 271AAA of the Act could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(Appeals) was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation and the assessee had not sought condonation of the delay. Since the notice was returned undelivered, it was deemed futile to send it again. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It was held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following the ratio in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It was held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following the ratio in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the file to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision. This was primarily because the assessee contended they were not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It was held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following the ratio in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It was held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following the ratio in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It was held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the facts were disclosed and the reduction in stock value was tax neutral.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was not served on the correct assessee and the statutory requirements were not complied with. The assessment was initiated and concluded on a different person with a different PAN.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It was held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, following the ratio in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal filed by the Assessing Officer was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the lease premium paid for acquiring leasehold rights for a long term is not rent as contemplated under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on this payment.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh as per CBDT instruction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to produce additional evidence, including bank certificates and loan details, to substantiate the claim for interest deduction. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed as its filing contravened the CBDT Circular dated 10/12/2015. The appeal was not protected by any exceptions mentioned in the circular.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular prescribing a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for appeals to the Tribunal, which had retrospective effect.
The Tribunal found that the additions were made without proper application of mind and lacked connection with the material on record. The third-party transactions were added without any basis, causing harassment to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee does not claim any expenditure for earning exempt income, no disallowance should be made under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer did not point out any specific expenditure incurred for earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating short-term capital gains on shares with a holding period of two days or less as speculative income. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the claim and allow set-off of losses against gains, as the transactions were routed through the exchange.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was wrong in taxing the assessee on the consideration received by the builder, as the assessee had no control over the property after leasing it. The assessee should only be taxed on the long-term gain arising from the initial lump sum compensation received at the time of leasing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was wrong in taxing the capital gains based on the consideration received by the builder, as the assessee had not received any part of it. The assessee should only be taxed on the long-term gain arising from the initial non-refundable deposit received at the time of leasing the land.