Loading ITAT cases…
554 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) should not be levied. This was based on the assessee's reasons for delay, the fact that similar proceedings for earlier years were dropped, and that the assessee was not a habitual defaulter.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by levying the fee under Section 234E while processing the intimation under Section 200A for a period prior to June 1, 2015. However, it clarified that the Assessing Officer could pass a separate order levying the fee if the limitation period had not expired.
The Tribunal held that the FOB value of export turnover needs to be examined in light of the definition under Section 80HHC(4C) and restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. Similarly, the computation of indirect costs was also restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under section 133A are not sworn statements and lack evidentiary value unless corroborated. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that evidence was fabricated and the statements were obtained under duress, upholding the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine, as payments were made by account payee cheques, confirmations were on record, and the sales of the paintings were not disputed. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that an order passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable before the Tribunal. Consequently, an order passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the directions of the Commissioner under section 264 is also not appealable.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the stamp duty valuation as deemed sales consideration as per the law then in force. The provisions of Section 43CA, which would have allowed such treatment, came into effect later.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not required to be denied exemption under Section 54F merely because the amount was not deposited in the capital gains account scheme before the due date of filing the return. The facts were similar to a Karnataka High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not excluding investments held as stock-in-trade, in subsidiary/group companies, and those not earning exempt income when computing the disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the share transactions were indeed investments resulting in STCG. Consequently, the set-off of brought forward STCL against STCG was also deemed correct.
The Tribunal held that the income derived from running and maintaining the shopping mall should be assessed as business income, considering the company's objects and extensive commercial activities. The disallowance under Section 14A and Section 43B were restored to the AO for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the six-month period for investment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the sale consideration, not the date of the Development Agreement. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the exemption.
The tribunal dismissed the first ground as not pressed. For the alternative ground, the tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh in light of Section 50C(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that no TDS was deductible on the service charges retained by banks/credit card agencies. This was based on previous Tribunal decisions which found no principal-agent relationship requiring TDS under Section 194H.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion by the AO without any new material. Since the reopening was invalid, the consequential additions made by the AO were also set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the disallowance of rent as conceded by the assessee. It allowed the disallowance of audit fees and administrative expenses, finding them comparable to a prior assessment year. The disallowance of depreciation was also allowed in favor of the assessee, holding that depreciation is a notional expenditure and not covered under Section 14A.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding unadjusted employee account balances as it was not pressed. The revenue's appeal regarding notional interest on loans to subsidiaries was dismissed. The assessee's appeal regarding property tax on leasehold rights was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was illegal and bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion by the AO without any new material. Since the reopening was invalid, the consequential additions made by the AO were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee consistently followed the cash basis for accounting DEPB entitlements and had already offered the income for taxation in the year of receipt, the addition made by the AO was unjustified. The AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the owner of the tenements occupied by its members and thus could not be assessed for notional rental income. It also held that transfer fees collected for major building repairs constituted a capital receipt and were not taxable income.
The Tribunal held that rental income from unsold flats, which are stock-in-trade of a housing project, has a direct nexus to the project and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10). The CIT(A)'s conclusion was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the service of the penalty order was not proper and that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in similar cases involving the same group and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it useful and relevant to the adjudication. It directed the Assessing Officer to consider this evidence and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding unadjusted employee account balances as it was not pressed. The revenue's appeal regarding notional interest on loans to subsidiaries was dismissed. The assessee's appeal regarding property tax on leasehold rights was allowed.
The Tribunal admitted the conveyance deed as additional evidence, noting it was not available before the lower authorities. It held that the entire issue needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary, commission, staff welfare expenses, sales promotion expenses, travelling expenses, telephone expenses, conveyance expenses, office expenses, and HMV Enterprises expenses to the extent of 50% by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. The Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 25% for these expenses.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding unadjusted employee account balances as it was not pressed. The revenue's appeal regarding notional interest on loans to subsidiaries was dismissed. The assessee's appeal regarding property tax on leasehold rights was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment should be considered for computing the holding period for long-term capital gains, allowing the assessee's claim for Section 54 exemption. Issues related to self-occupied property and interest were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement and making adjustments under Section 200A prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the demand raised under Section 234E in the intimation processed under Section 200A before this date was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal concerning the TDS levy was subsequently allowed, the penalty levied under Section 271C should be deleted. The penalty was confirmed without considering the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent treatment of share transactions as investments in past years, which were accepted by the revenue, should be honored. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2016 and the principle of consistency, the Tribunal decided that the income should be treated as capital gains.
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the tribunal deleted additions related to commission and rent payments, partly allowed disallowances on conveyance, travelling, and sundry expenses, and deleted additions on salary payments.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in taking an adverse view against the assessee due to the broker's non-cooperation and destruction of records. The assessee's evidence, including an affidavit from a former director, supported the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that since the additional income was voluntarily declared in the revised return filed under section 153A, and not based on any incriminating material found during the search, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that for shares held as stock-in-trade, disallowance under Section 14A is limited to 10% of dividend income, following the jurisdictional High Court. Regarding the performance bonus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier AY.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the lack of proper opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding unadjusted employee account balances as it was not pressed. The revenue's appeal regarding notional interest on loans to subsidiaries was dismissed. The assessee's appeal regarding property tax on leasehold rights was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the written-off amount for sales discount as the retention money held by the vendor exceeded this amount. It also allowed the professional fees as the assessee had deducted TDS and the recipients had reflected the income in their returns.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of low GP. The AO was not justified in disturbing the declared profits without rejecting the assessee's audited books of account.
The Tribunal found that the AO wrongly assessed the gross profit of the Goa unit by comparing it with the Murud unit without sufficient justification. While the AO's addition was not entirely set aside, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance by 50%, allowing the appeal partly.
The Tribunal found that tax authorities did not consider all documents and materials. Therefore, all issues required fresh consideration by the AO, and the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that tax authorities did not consider all documents and materials. Therefore, all issues required fresh consideration by the AO, and the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that tax authorities did not consider all documents and materials. Therefore, all issues required fresh consideration by the AO, and the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India and the income was not taxable in India, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance of the expenditure was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that administrative and indirect expenses are fully allowable as period costs and should not be capitalized. It also found no justification for changes in the GP rate, approving the assessee's percentage completion method. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of sale of shares was indeed LTCG as declared by the assessee, as the purchase and sale details were not disputed. Therefore, treating the gain as undisclosed income was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that payments to CWC, CFS, BPT, and AAI were not 'rent' under Section 194I as the assessee acted as an intermediary and these were statutory charges reimbursed by clients. Similarly, forklift/crane charges were part of a composite contract under Section 194C, not rental under Section 194I. Fumigation charges were not technical/professional services under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that since the services were rendered outside India and the income was not taxable in India, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS. Consequently, the disallowance of the expenditure was incorrect.