Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 3 of 14
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly dealt with the Assessing Officer's detailed findings regarding the lack of documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares and the reasons for the substantial decline in share value. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the capital gain arose upon the final payment in September 2009, and since the holding period was less than three years, it was correctly treated as Short Term Capital Gain.
The CIT(A) partially confirmed the addition, sustaining 30% of the purchase value, considering the assessee's GP rate and the possibility of profit from grey market purchases. The Tribunal found no material to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not based on incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no addition could be made in an unabated assessment in the absence of such material.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not entirely genuine, disallowing the entire amount was not justified. Following its own precedent for a prior assessment year, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was not correct in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries and the assessee had provided details. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions stating that inadequacy of inquiry does not automatically give jurisdiction to the CIT under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was not correct in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries and the assessee had provided details. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions stating that inadequacy of inquiry does not automatically give jurisdiction to the CIT under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding depreciation, set off of brought forward deficit, and dividend exemption were covered in favour of the assessee by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the PCIT for a fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding PSF(SC) and held it is not taxable income, directing the AO to re-compute income. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding leave encashment and deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, and upheld the depreciation rate on taxiways etc.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the invocation of Section 2(22)(e) as the assessee was a beneficial owner holding more than 10% shares. However, it found that the issue was not examined in detail by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal concerning the capital gains had already been decided in favor of the assessee. Since the original addition was deleted, the penalty imposed on that addition had no basis.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on purchases from Dev Enterprises at 12.5% as confirmed by the CIT(A), finding the purchases likely made from a grey market. For purchases from Atlantic Traders, the addition was restricted to 12.5% on the same analogy.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the profit on sale of shares should be treated as capital gains. The AO's contrary view for the specific year was found inconsistent with other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, considering it as profit embedded in bogus purchases. The revenue's appeal against this restriction was dismissed.
The Tribunal has issued a corrigendum to correct the inadvertent typing mistake in the names of the assessees. The original order disposing of the appeals remains valid, with the corrected names now to be read in place of the erroneous ones.
The Tribunal held that no interest could be imposed on the assessee under Section 234B when the payer failed to deduct tax at source. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in allowing depreciation and carrying forward of deficit. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that payments to CIDCO for development charges could be considered cost of improvement if they enhanced the property's value. It partially allowed the appeal on interest disallowance, directing the AO to consider the assessee's suo motu disallowance. For Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that no disallowance is applicable for shares held as stock-in-trade and directed the AO to verify the availability of interest-free funds for other investments, restricting the disallowance to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo determination. The AO was directed to make a reference to the TPO for the determination of the arm's length price of transactions with associated enterprises.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the rectification order passed on January 20, 2014, was beyond the four-year limitation period prescribed by Section 154(7) from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment order was passed.
The Tribunal held that interest income cannot be levied if it has not truly accrued. Given the poor financial health of the borrowers and the doubtfulness of principal recovery, the accrual of interest was not established.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing deletion of disallowances if the assessee proves payments were made within the relevant financial year. The assessee was also directed to produce necessary evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding PSF(SC) and held it is not taxable income, directing the AO to re-compute income. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding leave encashment and deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, and upheld the depreciation rate on taxiways etc.
The Tribunal held that income from the commercial property cannot be computed under Section 23 as it is not a 'house'. It also ruled that the assessee's residential flats, combined into a single unit as per family arrangement and used for habitation, should not be subject to ALV computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the accounting system, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient reconciliation to justify accounting royalty income on a receipt basis. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the disallowance of club expenses, noting the Assessing Officer's lack of specific reasoning.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the corresponding sales were not doubted and no contrary material was presented by the Revenue. Therefore, the addition of 12.5% of bogus purchases was sustained.
The Tribunal held that generation of steam power and cooling power are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, as the undertakings were integrated and independent. It also ruled that the profit for the power generation undertaking should be computed separately as per Section 80IA(5), rejecting the AO's method of applying the yeast manufacturing business's net profit rate.
The Tribunal held that generation of steam power and cooling power are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, as the undertakings were integrated and independent. It also ruled that the profit for the power generation undertaking should be computed separately as per Section 80IA(5), rejecting the AO's method of applying the yeast manufacturing business's net profit rate.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased assets and broken period interest are allowable, following its own precedents and High Court decisions. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D requires prior satisfaction by the AO, which was absent in this case.
The Tribunal held that since no exempt income was earned during the year, no disallowance of expenses attributable to earning such income could be made. The appeal was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's absence.
The Tribunal held that generation of steam power and cooling power are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, as the undertakings were integrated and independent. It also ruled that the profit for the power generation undertaking should be computed separately as per Section 80IA(5), rejecting the AO's method of applying the yeast manufacturing business's net profit rate.
The Tribunal held that generation of steam power and cooling power are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, as the undertakings were integrated and independent. It also ruled that the profit for the power generation undertaking should be computed separately as per Section 80IA(5), rejecting the AO's method of applying the yeast manufacturing business's net profit rate.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise all grounds. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow indexed cost of acquisition based on a valuer's report.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted claims without proper verification, especially regarding capital introduction and accommodation entries. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the invocation of revisional jurisdiction by the Pr. Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased assets and broken period interest are allowable, following its own precedents and High Court decisions. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D requires prior satisfaction by the AO, which was absent in this case.
The Tribunal held that investments generating or capable of generating taxable income must be excluded from the calculation of average investment under Rule 8D(2)(iii). This is because the rule pertains to investments whose income does not form part of the total income.
The Tribunal held that transactions in foreign exchange instruments on recognized stock exchanges are not speculative transactions due to amendments in Section 43(5) of the IT Act. Therefore, the loss is eligible for set off against business income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to repeated non-appearances. Therefore, the assessee's appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise all grounds. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow indexed cost of acquisition based on a valuer's report.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior AY, which held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of license fees under Section 43B was correct as no payment was made by the due date. However, the addition under Section 41(1) was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to avoid double addition.
The Tribunal held that while the purchase parties were suspicious, the sales were not disputed. Since payments were made by account payee cheques and sales were accepted, the AO should not have disallowed the entire purchases. Instead, a profit element should be estimated.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted claims without proper verification, especially regarding capital introduction and accommodation entries. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the invocation of revisional jurisdiction by the Pr. Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars but imposed it for concealment of income. It also noted that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is generally taxable in the hands of the shareholder.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular relied upon by the AO was not applicable for the assessment year 2010-11 as it was introduced later. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to pinpoint how the expenses specifically violated IMC Regulations.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit can only be allowed in the assessment year in which the income from which the tax was deducted is assessed. The assessee's reliance on a case where TDS was paid before processing of the return was distinguished.