Loading ITAT cases…
396 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that for assessments that had attained finality before the search, additions under Section 153C can only be made based on seized material. Additions made without such material are without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that for assessments that had attained finality before the search, additions under Section 153C can only be made based on seized material. Additions made without such material are without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in relation to dividend received from shares held as stock in trade, as this income is considered business income. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that for assessments that had attained finality before the search, additions under Section 153C can only be made based on seized material. Additions made without such material are without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s deletion of the addition. It found that the advances from debtors considered for addition in the impugned assessment year had already been taxed in AY 2006-07, and the balance was offered as sales.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, assessment under section 153A for completed assessments prior to the search was not proper. Regarding the disallowance under section 14A, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that investments in subsidiary companies were strategic for control, not for earning dividend income, and thus no expenditure was attributable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer violated natural justice by not confronting adverse material and denying cross-examination. The disallowance of 90% was unjustified without proper inquiry into all parties. The Tribunal also allowed depreciation on a motor car registered in a director's name but purchased and used by the company.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude shares held as stock-in-trade and investments in immovable property from the disallowance calculation. It also excluded strategic investments in sister concerns/group companies based on previous rulings.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was due to the possibility of new evidence impacting the genuineness of the loans and the need for the assessee to have a fair opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act apply when a property is vacant, and the actual rent received or receivable should be treated as the ALV, not a notional value. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's business was set up and commenced, expenses incurred in the normal course of business, which do not create a new capital asset, are allowable as revenue expenditure. The compensation and repair reimbursements were deemed revenue in nature.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on intangible assets to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, pending the outcome of the prior year's assessment. The additions related to house property income and AIR information were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Section 80IA deduction claim was directed to be considered by the Assessing Officer upon the pending rectification application.
The Tribunal held that while there was interdependence between the units due to significant inter-unit sales, the CIT(A) correctly accepted the assessee's contention regarding the double inclusion of inter-unit sales. Therefore, the AO was directed to re-work the deduction after adjusting for inter-unit sales.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee was not bonafide. The assessee had ample time to rectify the situation after the death of their CA, and the onus was on them to file a correct return.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not followed its previous order to give both parties an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte without allowing the Assessing Officer to present their case.
The Tribunal held that non-production of parties cannot be the sole criterion for disallowing entire purchases, especially when sales are not disputed. The Tribunal agreed that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be added back to the income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order violated principles of natural justice as it was passed without proper basis and without confronting the AO with the assessee's new pleading. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to apply his mind when issuing the penalty notice, as it was not specific about the charge and was a modified notice primarily for furnishing a return of income. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to foreign exchange loss, finding no material to controvert the lower authorities' findings. However, it set aside the disallowance under Section 14A, finding it mechanically computed without proper application of mind, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to the case of the assessee's husband, where a similar penalty was challenged. The Tribunal referred to the husband's case for analysis and decision, implying a similar outcome for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the partnership deed did specify the manner of remuneration distribution, but the quantum needed recalculation. It also upheld the deletion of the disallowance on capital introduced by partners, finding the sources were explained. The gain from the land sale was correctly treated as long-term capital gain.
The Tribunal found that a previous order of the ITAT had already quashed the revision order passed by the CIT under Section 263. Consequently, the assessment order based on the quashed revision order was also rendered invalid.
The Tribunal held that SEBI consent fees and penalties for wrong reporting are allowable deductions as they are for settlement of disputes and not penalties for proven offenses. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow indexation benefit from the original holding period of the membership card.
The Tribunal held that the lease premium paid for the acquisition of land rights is a capital expenditure and does not fall within the definition of 'rent' under Section 194-I. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payment.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 due to low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of LTCG to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee with any third-party information and consider the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in adding notional interest on an interest-free deposit to the ALV of the property. The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Court judgments on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation gains realized on outstanding debtors pertaining to earlier years, but realized in the current year, are eligible for Section 10A deduction. The Tribunal also ruled that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS would enhance profits and consequently the Section 10A deduction, thus not impacting the taxable income.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, and the issue was not an exception. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in adding notional interest on an interest-free deposit to the ALV of the property. The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Court judgments on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in adding notional interest on an interest-free deposit to the ALV of the property. The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Court judgments on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in adding notional interest on an interest-free deposit to the ALV of the property. The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Court judgments on similar issues.
The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the penalty appeal along with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 due to low tax effect. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to appear or provide evidence to explain the sustained additions.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IB(10) is allowable on the residential portion of the project, even if it included limited commercial space, provided the project was approved before the amended provisions came into effect. The penalty under Section 221(1) was deleted as the underlying tax demand was likely to be reduced to nil.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on fixed assets for a charitable trust was decided in the assessee's own case in preceding years. The Bombay High Court had declined to admit a substantial question of law against the Tribunal's order on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the amount advanced to the subsidiary was for the assessee's business promotion and the expenditure incurred by the subsidiary was revenue in nature, not capital. Therefore, the write-off was allowable as a business loss.
The tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance to the AO for verification of surplus funds. It held that DEPB benefits are taxable only upon actual import, following the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. The penalty disallowance was confirmed as it was for a procedural violation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's suo motu disallowance was reasonable and justified, especially when compared to the excessive disallowance calculated by the AO under Rule 8D. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that expenses like freight and insurance, which do not have an element of profit, should be excluded from total turnover for calculating deduction under Section 10AA. The decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 10B should be computed on current year profits before setting off brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's suo motu disallowance was reasonable and justified, especially when compared to the excessive disallowance calculated by the AO under Rule 8D. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that consistency in accounting method, accepted by the Revenue in prior years, should be maintained. The assessee was permitted to follow the 'project completion method' as it is a recognized method for builders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's suo motu disallowance was reasonable and justified, especially when compared to the excessive disallowance calculated by the AO under Rule 8D. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's suo motu disallowance was reasonable and justified, especially when compared to the excessive disallowance calculated by the AO under Rule 8D. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's suo motu disallowance was reasonable and justified, especially when compared to the excessive disallowance calculated by the AO under Rule 8D. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for the brother's account, finding it was not disputed. For the assessee's own account, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of addition to 10% of the deposits, considering the business receipts.