Loading ITAT cases…
545 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal held that administrative costs are period costs and should be debited to the profit and loss account. Expenses directly attributable to the project should be capitalized as work-in-progress.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law due to non-application of mind. This was based on the AO's unclear stance on whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (sale agreement from 1982) and restored the issues related to indexation and Section 50C to the AO for re-examination. The assessee's ground regarding occupancy charges was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary aim was to serve the business interests of its members, and it had not undertaken any charitable activities. Therefore, it was not entitled to registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal held that the issues related to denial of natural justice and the validity of reopening of assessment should be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to decide these legal issues first after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred after the setting up of a business are allowable, even if the business has not yet commenced operations or earned revenue. The AO's disallowance was not sustainable as he had himself noted that the assessee was engaged in business.
The Tribunal held that the TDS credit was rightly claimed by the assessee. The rental income was reflected in the wife's return, and she paid taxes on it without claiming the TDS credit, making the assessee's claim allowable.
The Tribunal agreed that the unadjudicated jurisdictional ground needed to be addressed. Therefore, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate all grounds afresh, including the jurisdictional one, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessments but set aside the CIT(A)'s order on issues related to production, sales, and profit estimation. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessments but set aside the CIT(A)'s order on issues related to production, sales, and profit estimation. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessments but set aside the CIT(A)'s order on issues related to production, sales, and profit estimation. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessments but set aside the CIT(A)'s order on issues related to production, sales, and profit estimation. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessments but set aside the CIT(A)'s order on issues related to production, sales, and profit estimation. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained bank entries to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining necessary details from the custodian, citing similar past cases. The issue of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was also restored to the AO for recalculation, considering TDS.
The Tribunal noted the repeated adjournments sought by the assessee and their subsequent non-appearance. Finding no evidence to substantiate the assessee's claims and being satisfied with the impugned order, the Tribunal affirmed it.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to rent expenses, stating that the assessee failed to provide justification for not raising the issue before the CIT(A) and did not present new evidence. The overall appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the credit available under Section 115JAA should include income-tax, surcharge, and education cess paid under Section 115JB. This credit should be set off against the gross tax liability, including surcharge and cess, in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a group of previously decided appeals. Following the principle of consistency, the Revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the issue was debatable and the assessee had disclosed all facts, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C applies only to land or building, not tenancy rights. It noted that the CIT(A) failed to follow the jurisdictional ITAT Benches' consistent view on this matter.
The Tribunal held that there was no illegality in the 'success based' mode of payment to a non-professional entity. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in contravention of the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that there was no illegality in the 'success based' mode of payment to a non-professional entity. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal noted the consistent non-compliance by the assessee and dismissed the request for adjournment. The order of the CIT(A) was confirmed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rate of interest of 15% claimed by the assessee cannot be considered excessive. The decision of the CIT(A) to confirm the disallowance was reversed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits. This was done in the interest of natural justice, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2000.
The Tribunal held that there was no illegality in the 'success based' mode of payment to a non-professional entity. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the date of commencement certificate is the actual approval date for the purpose of Section 80IB(10). The project was completed within the five-year period from the end of the financial year of this approval.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the AO's findings regarding unserved notices and the failure to produce suppliers. However, considering the decline in the assessee's Gross Profit (GP) and the lack of explanation, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it fair and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted relief based on the Tribunal's own decision for an earlier assessment year and that there was no change in facts.
The Tribunal held that there was no illegality in the 'success based' mode of payment to a non-professional entity. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, reducing disallowances for most assessment years. For AY 2006-07, the addition was deleted entirely. The penalty for AY 2005-06 was also deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding stock discrepancies, finding it to be a quantity error due to software issues. It also allowed the grounds related to commission payments, deeming them genuine business expenses. The reassessment proceedings for other years were held to be bad in law due to the non-furnishing of reasons for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly appreciated the documents filed by the assessee regarding the source of funds for the property investment. For the credit card expenses, it was found that the payments were made by a company in which the assessee was a director, and thus the addition in the assessee's hands was not justified.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were significantly altered by the Tribunal in the assessee's group cases, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that income from sale of shares should be treated as capital gains, not business income, even with frequent transactions, if the assessee maintains an investment portfolio. This decision followed the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's ruling and CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was not completed during the year under consideration because the selling price and quantity were not final, and the agreements allowed for adjustments and refunds based on future events.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were significantly altered by the Tribunal in the assessee's group cases, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not based on presumption but on credible information. However, it reduced the disallowance from 20% to 15% in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue was precluded from pursuing the appeal due to CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the omission to include the interest income was bonafide and due to the circumstances of the assessee being abroad and his father's medical condition. The lower authorities failed to prove that the assessee's explanation was false or not bonafide, and the assessee's conduct did not indicate deliberate concealment.