Loading ITAT cases…
535 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as one notice was superfluous and the other had substantial compliance with reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as one notice was superfluous and the other had substantial compliance with reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid was for business purposes and directed its allowance. The addition for unexplained cash credit was restored to the AO for fresh consideration. The restricted disallowance of business expenses by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was premature as the assessee was not confronted with the incriminating material used against them. The AO was directed to confront the assessee with the material and provide reasons for disregarding the assessee's affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on the motor vehicle at the normal rates for professional use. It also ruled that expenses incurred by the partner for law books, journals, and periodicals were allowable as they were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning professional income.
The Tribunal found no merit in the disallowance of purchases and addition on account of suppressed profits, noting that the assessee's profit margins were better than previous years. The matter regarding short-term capital gains was restored to the AO for reference to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for the transferred interest in the built-up area is not NIL. It directed the Assessing Officer to compute the capital gains after allowing the cost of acquisition, estimating it based on the value of the subject property as per a previous agreement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a cooperative bank as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and therefore, sub-section (4) of Section 80P is not applicable. The order of the First Appellate Authority was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was not justified as the dividend-yielding shares were stock-in-trade. Relying on jurisdictional High Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to immunity from penalty under section 271AAA(2) as the conditions for substantial compliance were met. The penalty was deleted based on various High Court and ITAT decisions concerning disclosures made under section 132(4).
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for appeals filed by the Revenue. This circular is retrospective and applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the documents evidencing the purchase and sale of shares should be considered along with the examination of the individual who provided accommodation entries. The case was restored to the AO for further examination and cross-examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for purchases from two parties and proof of delivery/stock for the other two. However, it held that disallowing the entire amount was not justified and a reasonable percentage addition would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal set aside both issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee is to be provided with an opportunity to submit details and documentary evidence to establish the utilization of borrowed funds for capital work-in-progress and the nature of services provided to employees.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable for charitable trusts based on High Court precedents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. The issue of loan repayment was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable for charitable trusts based on High Court precedents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. The issue of loan repayment was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income, restricting it to the amount of dividend income. For other expenses, the disallowance was reduced from 1/5th to 1/10th of the total claimed expenses.
The Tribunal restored the issues related to Section 40(a)(ia) disallowances to the AO for verification of TDS details and to consider the payee's compliance. For the general disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that business activities were temporarily suspended and allowed the expenses.
The Tribunal held that membership rights are eligible for depreciation as intangible assets, following Supreme Court and its own prior decisions. It also held that lease line charges are payments for facilities, not technical services, thus not requiring TDS under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and directed the AO to restrict disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income to 5% of the exempt income. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for Key Man Insurance Premium as a business expenditure under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as one notice was superfluous and the other had substantial compliance with reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that membership rights are eligible for depreciation as intangible assets, following Supreme Court and its own prior decisions. It also held that lease line charges are payments for facilities, not technical services, thus not requiring TDS under Section 194J.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as one notice was superfluous and the other had substantial compliance with reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as one notice was superfluous and the other had substantial compliance with reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on the motor vehicle at the normal rates for professional use. It also ruled that expenses incurred by the partner for law books, journals, and periodicals were allowable as they were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning professional income.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for the transferred interest in the built-up area is not NIL. It directed the Assessing Officer to compute the capital gains after allowing the cost of acquisition, estimating it based on the value of the subject property as per a previous agreement.
The Tribunal held that the profit on unaccounted sales should be calculated based on a revised selling price (75% of MRP) and the cost price, not the wholesale price as determined by the CIT(A). It also held that a portion of the unaccounted stock addition should be sustained, considering the assessee's surrender.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed non-speaking orders and failed to properly consider the assessee's submissions and returned loss. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on the issue of ambiguity in the penalty notice under Section 274. Therefore, the issue is remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the rental income from unsold housing stock should be treated as income from house property, not business income. This decision was based on the consistent view of the ITAT and the Bombay High Court in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80IB on job work charges was a debatable and bona fide issue. Therefore, it did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and the penalty was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that merely because sellers appeared on a suspicious dealers list is not sufficient to doubt the genuineness of purchases, especially when the assessee provided substantial evidence of purchases and payments made via account payee cheques.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the assessee's plea for telescoping of withdrawals against deposits and had not followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision on deemed rental income. Therefore, both issues were set aside for fresh examination.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance for the courier charges write-off as it was incurred for business. For the rental deposits, the Tribunal allowed the write-off as a business loss, following a precedent.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court precedents. The lower appellate authority was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and furnish evidence.