Loading ITAT cases…
533 orders · Page 1 of 11
The tribunal reduced the disallowance on electricity and telephone expenses to 20% and allowed all expenses claimed for M/s Dear Impex. The issue regarding Section 80HHC deduction was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, it found that the AO had not allowed the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination and had not properly examined the assessee's claim of having sold the software. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for the donation under Section 35(1)(ii)/(iii) was not allowable due to lack of CBDT approval. However, the alternative claim for deduction under Section 80G was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The expenditure on wire mesh was held to be revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that it is not in the interest of justice to decide the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits. Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that several additions were made erroneously or without proper consideration. The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
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 held that expenses with late TDS payments should be allowed if TDS is paid before the return filing due date, and that a consistently followed method of stock valuation should not be disturbed without showing a flaw. It also found that a disputed liability did not cease to exist.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the issues were covered under the APA. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that the actual sale consideration should be accepted as it was accepted in the hands of other co-owners and the comparable sale instances relied upon by the CIT(A) were not appropriate. Therefore, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred were in the nature of current repairs and not capital expenditure, as no new asset of enduring nature was created. Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal was sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding deductions for house property income and disallowance of interest expenditure against interest income require fresh examination. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had made substantial compliance by deducting and depositing TDS on time. The delays were considered technical lapses due to reasons like the new system and administrative issues, not willful non-compliance.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was not applicable for Assessment Year 2007-08, but was applicable from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards. It was clarified that only investments capable of yielding tax-free income should be included for disallowance calculations.
The Tribunal held that the office premises, even if not directly used for business, could be part of a larger block of depreciable assets. However, it rejected the claim for depreciation on a newly acquired office as it was not proven to be put to use before the financial year-end.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that even if the overdue receivables are considered an international transaction, after factoring in the notional interest, the assessee's margin remains higher than comparables. Therefore, no separate addition is required.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void ab initio. Since the notice for penalty was served after the assessee's death, all subsequent actions were invalid.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper authority of law as the Revenue could not demonstrate the Additional Commissioner's competence to pass the order. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper authority of law as the Revenue could not demonstrate the Additional Commissioner's competence to pass the order. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the AO was subsequently deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT. Following the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders, the Tribunal held that if the additions forming the basis of a penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal held that the actual sale consideration should be accepted as it was accepted in the hands of other co-owners and the comparable sale instances relied upon by the CIT(A) were not appropriate. Therefore, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for the impugned assessment years was concluded before the search date, and no incriminating material was found against the assessee during the search. Therefore, additions made could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that even if the overdue receivables were considered an international transaction, after factoring in the notional interest, the assessee's margin remained higher than the comparables. Therefore, no separate addition was required.
The Tribunal decided issues on merits, including the interpretation of seized papers and the admissibility of expenses. It also addressed the legality of search assessments and the treatment of payments to MHADA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide verifiable evidence of share delivery despite opportunities. The Tribunal agreed that the transactions were bogus and correctly assessed as 'Income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that the date of possession of the new residential flat, which was after the sale of the original property, should be considered for the purpose of Section 54 exemption. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on motor cars by following a coordinate bench decision. It restored the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the AO for fresh adjudication. The addition for bogus purchases was upheld due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company (EMML) is bad in law and void ab initio. The revision order passed under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner is therefore illegal.
The Tribunal held that deposits retained as security for bottles and crates, intended to cover liquidated damages for loss, are not taxable as income. The assessee needs to provide sufficient evidence to prove the security claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's invocation of Section 263 was unjustified as the Assessing Officer had correctly allowed the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation based on settled legal precedents. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the assessments to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing him to consider the assessee's submissions and case laws, and to provide adequate opportunity for hearing. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal deleted the penalties, holding that they were not justified on estimated additions.
The Tribunal held that for the period prior to June 1, 2015, the AO exceeded their jurisdiction by levying the fee under Section 234E while processing the TDS statement under Section 200A. The levy of such fee in the intimation under Section 200A was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The allegation of accommodation entries was based on a misunderstanding of the transaction parties, and the re-opening was based on the same material considered earlier, constituting a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that non-service of notices under Section 133(6) without further inquiry and routing of transactions through sister concerns are not sufficient grounds to disallow purchases. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient information.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the additional ground was not considered. The issue of interest under Section 234C was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order in violation of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that vocational courses like welding and allied trades qualify as educational activities. It also ruled that an interest-free advance to another institute with similar objects does not violate Section 11(5) of the Act.