Loading ITAT cases…
409 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal held that since confirmations were furnished before the CIT(A) and no major defects were found, the purchases could not be treated as bogus, especially when sales from these purchases were accepted.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on cargo scanners at 60%, following its own prior decision. It also allowed the dividend income exemption and deleted the ad-hoc disallowance on handling and clearing charges, again relying on previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to apply his mind when issuing the penalty notice, as it did not specify the exact charge for which the penalty was proposed. The notice was issued on a standard proforma without striking out irrelevant clauses, thus failing to convey a clear charge to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on cargo scanners at 60%, following its own prior decision. It also allowed the dividend income exemption and deleted the ad-hoc disallowance on handling and clearing charges, again relying on previous rulings.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on cargo scanners at 60%, following its own prior decision. It also allowed the dividend income exemption and deleted the ad-hoc disallowance on handling and clearing charges, again relying on previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that cargo scanners are integral parts of a computer system and are eligible for depreciation at 60%. It also ruled that Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not applicable in the circumstances, and the ad-hoc disallowance on handling and clearing charges was not justifiable.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that bill discounting charges are not interest but expenses incurred for realization of value and are allowable on an actual basis. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without examining the merits of the case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh decision. This was because the assessee admitted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without giving the AO an opportunity to examine evidence filed during appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gift. The Tribunal relied on a prior order of the CIT(A) which had accepted the Foreign Remittance Certificate and deleted a penalty related to this disallowance.
For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, relying on a High Court decision stating that a voluntarily offered income, even if rejected, doesn't constitute concealment. For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to assess rental income based on a subsequent jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to deemed rent and Section 14A expenses, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. The ground regarding traffic police payments was dismissed as not being wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the circumstances for not getting his accounts audited, considering the provisions of Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, relying on a High Court decision stating that a voluntarily offered income, even if rejected, doesn't constitute concealment. For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to assess rental income based on a subsequent jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that while the sale of the flat was complete, the claim for cost of improvement was partially allowable. The Tribunal increased the allowable cost of improvement from what was granted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 153C as the conditions were not satisfied. The assessee's contention that the share application money was from genuine corporate bodies and the initial admission of income was made under a mistaken belief was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 153C as the conditions were not satisfied. The assessee's contention that the share application money was from genuine corporate bodies and the initial admission of income was made under a mistaken belief was accepted.
The Tribunal held that payments for routine maintenance of equipment do not constitute fees for technical services under Section 194J. The service provider did not impart technical know-how, nor did the assessee acquire any technical information.