Loading ITAT cases…
545 orders · Page 1 of 11
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to modify a best judgment assessment if it is found to be unreasonable or based on illogical reasoning. The CIT(A) acted within his jurisdiction in modifying the disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted relief by following consistent past decisions and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision on both issues was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E in an intimation. Therefore, such levies were beyond the scope of the then-existing provisions.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E in an intimation. Therefore, such levies were beyond the scope of the then-existing provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing invoices, bank details, and PAN of suppliers, and payments were made via cheques. The AO's conclusion of bogus purchases was based on unserved notices and the inspector's report, which was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for additional depreciation, finding that the assessee had achieved the required capacity expansion. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that payments for technical services did not make available technical knowledge and were thus not liable for TDS as per DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure had no nexus with the exempt income earned from investments made in earlier assessment years. However, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was directed to be re-examined by the AO after segregating unrelated accounts.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue of share capital by considering additional evidence. It allowed the renovation expenses as revenue expenditure and granted depreciation on residential renovation expenses. Some issues were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E in an intimation. Therefore, such levies were beyond the scope of the then-existing provisions.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E in an intimation. Therefore, such levies were beyond the scope of the then-existing provisions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record his satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) before applying Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was the deemed owner of the property as per Section 27(iiib) of the Act, as the lease was for a period of ten years and not a short-term lease. Therefore, the income should be assessed under the head 'income from house property'.
The Tribunal held that the AO should not have added the entire purchase amount. The addition should be restricted to the extent of the assessee's GP rates and applicable VAT rates, after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the peak credit of Rs. 8,73,162 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, dismissing the assessee's claim of genuine cash gifts. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s approach of considering peak credit for undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that the activity of cutting and polishing of rough diamonds amounts to manufacture, allowing the claim for additional depreciation. This was based on previous tribunal and Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 245HA(2) of the Income Tax Act mandates that upon abatement of proceedings before the ITSC, the case shall be disposed of as if no application was made to the ITSC. Therefore, the CIT(A) was required to revive and dispose of the appeal without looking for exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the deficiencies in the contractors' bills were peripheral and did not disprove the genuineness of the work done. The Tribunal noted that the labour cost was comparable to previous years and no evidence showed the payments had flown back to the assessee.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Revenue did not dispute the validity of the precedents relied upon. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to rebut the evidence presented by the assessees. The Tribunal found that the land was indeed agricultural land at the time of sale, based on documentary and circumstantial evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee's cross-objection regarding Section 14A disallowance was admitted after condoning a delay and was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to rebut the evidence presented by the assessees. The Tribunal found that the land was indeed agricultural land at the time of sale, based on documentary and circumstantial evidence.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, Section 200A did not empower the Assessing Officer to levy fees under Section 234E in an intimation. Therefore, such levies were beyond the scope of the then-existing provisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 245HA(2) of the Income Tax Act mandates that upon abatement of proceedings before the ITSC, the case shall be disposed of as if no application was made to the ITSC. Therefore, the CIT(A) was required to revive and dispose of the appeal without looking for exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction to modify a best judgment assessment if it is found to be unreasonable or based on illogical reasoning. The CIT(A) acted within his jurisdiction in modifying the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was untenable because the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as required by Section 274(1). Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on both grounds. The addition of Rs. 56,19,701/- under 'income from other sources' was sustained, and the exclusion of dividend income from capital work in progress was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that Section 245HA(2) of the Income Tax Act mandates that upon abatement of proceedings before the ITSC, the case shall be disposed of as if no application was made to the ITSC. Therefore, the CIT(A) was required to revive and dispose of the appeal without looking for exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not follow the jurisdictional High Court's precedent regarding the presumption of investments being made from interest-free funds when available. The Tribunal also found that the AO's adverse inference regarding PMS fees might not be a proper appreciation of facts.
The Tribunal held that exceeding the monetary limit under the proviso to Section 2(15) affects the assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 11 for that specific year, but it does not automatically lead to the cancellation of registration granted under Section 12AA. The grounds for cancellation under Section 12AA(3) are distinct and relate to the genuineness of activities or non-adherence to objects.
The Tribunal held that Section 245HA(2) of the Income Tax Act mandates that upon abatement of proceedings before the ITSC, the case shall be disposed of as if no application was made to the ITSC. Therefore, the CIT(A) was required to revive and dispose of the appeal without looking for exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in determining the annual letting value by merely following previous years' orders without considering rent control legislation and fair market value. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's case was not properly canvassed before the lower authorities and that the assessee's counsel sought to file additional evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lakhs or less should not be filed or should be withdrawn. This circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that money market transactions without delivery are speculative, allowing set-off of speculative losses against speculative profits. Depreciation on the computer was allowed, and the issue of interest payable to brokerage firms was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing invoices, bank details, and PAN of suppliers, and payments were made via cheques. The AO's conclusion of bogus purchases was based on unserved notices and the inspector's report, which was not confronted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the compensation paid was an inseparable part of the business transaction and directly related to fulfilling obligations under the deed of release for which compensation was received. Therefore, the payment was allowable as a business expenditure/loss.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction under Section 80IB(10) on the sale of TDR/FSI. The Tribunal found that the assessee's slum development project was approved within the eligible period as per the relevant notification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 10A on enhanced income, including disallowances made under Section 40(a)(ia). This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.
The Tribunal decided to remand both issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication. For M/s. Divya Tej Corporation, the AO was directed to conduct proper inquiries as per the previous ITAT order. For M/s. Sunrise Enterprise, the AO was directed to consider the repayment of the loan and verify identity and creditworthiness.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, following its own previous rulings and those of the Bombay High Court. It held that the lease line charges were pure reimbursement and not royalty, and the other expenses were also not taxable as fees for technical services.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment as the assessee failed to provide any material to prove it was wrong. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was set aside and remanded for re-computation as Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not adequately rebut the evidence presented by the assessees to prove the land was agricultural. The Tribunal found the facts distinguishable from precedents relied upon by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding cash gifts, finding insufficient evidence of donor creditworthiness and transaction genuineness. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to consider peak credit as income, following a previous year's order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the gains on the sale of shares were long-term capital gains. The Tribunal found that the partnership was valid and the shares were held as an investment, not for trading purposes.
The Tribunal found the explanations for the delay to be unconvincing and lacking cogency. The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay requires sufficient cause beyond the party's control, which was not demonstrated.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries and examined the details furnished by the assessee before allowing the deduction. Therefore, the CIT's order under Section 263, based on the premise of no proper inquiry, was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases, confirming that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of these transactions. The assessee's inability to produce the parties or transporters further supported the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was untenable because the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as required by Section 274(1). Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to address the AO's finding that no documentary evidence was provided to show that the commission agent helped in procuring business. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not verify if services were properly rendered and set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the wife's share of investment in the new residential property should also be considered for exemption under Section 54, citing various High Court judgments. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.