Loading ITAT cases…
274 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee had the right to appeal even after filing the return, especially when the return was filed with a rider. It directed the AO to verify the facts against a previous similar case and allow the claim accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the rental receipts were indeed business income, as the assessee was actively involved in managing and exploiting the property as a business asset. It also confirmed the deletion of interest disallowance, finding that the advances to sister concerns were for business expansion and development.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond four years is invalid unless the AO records the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Following the Bombay High Court judgment in Titanor Components Ltd., the reopening was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A needed reconsideration as the entire investment was considered without specific findings on expenses directly relatable to exempt income. For telephone expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 10% based on a previous year's order. The disallowance of motor car expenses was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the loss arising on revaluation of forward exchange contracts at the year-end is an allowable business expenditure. This is consistent with accounting principles and judicial precedents where such mark-to-market losses are recognized.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
The Tribunal held that reopening beyond four years is invalid unless the AO records the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Following the Bombay High Court judgment in Titanor Components Ltd., the reopening was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority had rejected additional evidence on technical grounds and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claims with an opportunity to furnish evidence. The issue of strategic investment also required further examination by the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal held that no rental income accrued to the assessee due to the ongoing dispute and lack of certainty. It also upheld the disallowance of rent paid by the assessee for its own occupation due to lack of ascertained liability and non-deduction of TDS.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the Assessing Officer directed to examine the claim for deduction under Section 35D.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was prejudicial to the revenue. Since the AO had already examined the issue and the unabsorbed depreciation did not include depreciation from the 10B units, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c). This was based on the revenue accepting similar claims in a subsequent assessment year and the principle that penalty is not leviable when facts are disclosed and the issue is debatable.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is applicable only when the recipient is a shareholder or beneficial owner of 10% or more in the lending company. Since the assessee was neither, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was prejudicial to the revenue. Since the AO had already examined the issue and the unabsorbed depreciation did not include depreciation from the 10B units, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal followed its previous decision for AY 2008-09, which had extensively discussed the eligibility of CFS as an infrastructure facility under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings.
The tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in calculating the annual value. Given the inapplicability of the Rent Control Act and the lack of proper documentation, the case was restored to the AO to determine the annual value in accordance with the provisions for fixation of standard rent.
The Tribunal held that since no exempt income (dividend income) was earned by the assessee, there was no question of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Consequently, the addition made while calculating book profit under Section 115JB was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that bank guarantee charges are not in the nature of commission as understood in Section 194H, as there is no principal-agent relationship. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business loss of a non-eligible unit cannot be set off against the current profit of an eligible unit while computing deduction under Section 10B. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the assessee's claim in light of this.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to determine the expenditure in relation to exempt income as per Rule 8D.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the AO and CIT(A) and the lack of documentary evidence for his claimed illness. However, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to both amounts 'paid' and 'payable', overturning the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Special Bench decision. However, it found that the assessee had raised merits-based contentions before the CIT(A) which were not properly examined.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the identity of the donor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the donor's creditworthiness. The gift was received through banking channels, and the donor had provided a confirmation letter and supporting documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the disallowance of provisions for expenses as covered by a previous order. For Section 14A, it directed the AO to recompute the disallowance at 2% of exempt income. The issue of Section 80-HHC deduction for book profit was restored to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT instruction No. 21 of 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakh are not to be filed before the ITAT. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the shop was acquired in 1993 or at the latest by 1997, making the gain long-term. However, the purchase of the new residential flat was after the sale of the shop, thus denying Section 54F exemption.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. For the assessee's appeals, one ground was dismissed as not pressed, another was partly allowed, and the remaining issues were decided based on previous tribunal rulings and directions to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, following a High Court order, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing certain disallowances, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings on most grounds but provided some relief on specific disallowances.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of professional fees paid to Preroy AG, finding no evidence of independent services rendered by the company. It also upheld the disallowance of travelling expenses incurred by the director's wife, as it was not proven to be wholly for business purposes.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of professional fees paid to Preroy AG, finding no evidence of independent services rendered by the company. It also upheld the disallowance of travelling expenses incurred by the director's wife, as it was not proven to be wholly for business purposes.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing certain disallowances, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings on most grounds but provided some relief on specific disallowances.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench decision covered the issue against the assessee. However, due to a related order taxing the compensation award in an earlier year, the same income could not be taxed again in the current year.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeals on merits due to subsequent developments and current advice. Therefore, the grievances raised by the assessee were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision where similar facts led to treating gains as capital gains. It found the assessee to be an investor and not a trader, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and examined the details provided by the assessee before allowing the deduction. Therefore, the Commissioner's invocation of revisional jurisdiction was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, noting a similar issue in a subsequent assessment year, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant evidence.
The Tribunal held that denying cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the assessment. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that in cases covered by Section 47(xiii), the successor company is entitled to depreciation based on the cost incurred by it, especially when the transaction is accepted by the revenue and supported by a registered valuer's report.
The Tribunal held that in cases covered by Section 47(xiii), the successor company is entitled to depreciation based on the cost incurred by it, especially when the transaction is accepted by the revenue and supported by a registered valuer's report.
The Tribunal held that a co-operative credit society, which only provides credit facilities to its members and does not accept public deposits, is distinct from a co-operative bank as defined for the purpose of Section 80P(4). Therefore, the restriction under Section 80P(4) does not apply to it.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the relevant reports to the assessee, rendering the previous order unexecuted. Therefore, the matter was sent back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the investigator's report and affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds, it should be presumed that investments were not made from borrowed funds. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made mechanically and cannot exceed the expenditure claimed.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.
The tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had granted the necessary relief to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee's appeals no longer had any grievance surviving.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as there was no wilful default or concealment of income. The legal heir's inability to furnish details due to the original assessee's death and her lack of knowledge was considered.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was genuine as the money was received through banking channels and the identity of the payer was established through court proceedings. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh prescribed by CBDT instruction for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) based on those additions would not survive. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.