Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 8 of 14
The Tribunal held that Development Fees collected by the assessee are in the nature of capital receipts, akin to cess or tax, and not taxable revenue. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that a reasonable percentage of addition (5% to 12.5%) is justifiable on bogus purchases to tax the savings made by the assessee. The AO did not dispute the sales corresponding to these purchases.
The Tribunal noted that similar expenses incurred in the previous assessment year (2010-11) were not disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Following the rule of consistency, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned in a particular assessment year. If no exempt income is earned, no disallowance can be made.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the inability to produce documents and the subsequent application for additional evidence. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the additional evidence and a decision on merits.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the rental income was business income due to the assessee's objects and activities. It also upheld the allowance of expenses incurred for maintaining business assets.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the reduction of profit on sale of depreciable assets for computing book profit under Section 115JB is debatable, as evidenced by conflicting Special Bench decisions. Therefore, it cannot be considered a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment based on new information. However, it reduced the addition for bogus purchases to 5% of the amount, considering potential savings from grey market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from the multiplex, including income from amenities and facilities, constituted a composite business activity. The decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for prior years was followed.
The Tribunal held that Development Fees collected by the assessee are in the nature of capital receipts, akin to cess or tax, and not taxable revenue. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal held that Development Fees collected by the assessee are in the nature of capital receipts, akin to cess or tax, and not taxable revenue. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal condoned the 3-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were revived by a higher ITAT order, the penalty orders passed pursuant to those assessments also survive. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when the income is computed under Section 115JB and the normal taxable income is less than the book profit, as per CBDT Circular No. 25/2015. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO was directed to restrict the disallowance to Rs.3,94,242.
The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders were revived by a higher ITAT order, the penalty orders passed pursuant to those assessments also survive. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO was directed to restrict the disallowance to Rs.3,94,242.
The Tribunal held that the transaction could not be considered sham in the hands of the assessee when it was treated as genuine in the hands of the joint venture partners by the revenue. Consequently, the expenditure incurred for acquiring the interest in the land was considered a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and therefore could not be admitted. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the gross profit rates after the additions were absurdly high. Therefore, it estimated the profit on impugned purchases at 7% for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A. The amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, which enabled this, was prospective.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced confirmation letters and had not made any concession. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the gross profit rates after the additions were absurdly high. Therefore, it estimated the profit on impugned purchases at 7% for all assessment years.
The Tribunal found that the gross profit rates after the additions were absurdly high. Therefore, it estimated the profit on impugned purchases at 7% for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the AO mixed up the two limbs of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars), which carry different connotations. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the gross profit rates after the additions were absurdly high. Therefore, it estimated the profit on impugned purchases at 7% for all assessment years.
The Tribunal found that the gross profit rates after the additions were absurdly high. Therefore, it estimated the profit on impugned purchases at 7% for all assessment years.
The Tribunal found that the gross profit rates after the additions were absurdly high. Therefore, it estimated the profit on impugned purchases at 7% for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to cover its investments, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. Therefore, no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) at 30% was on the higher side. Following precedents, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. For bogus purchases, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus amount, following a previous year's order. The disallowance for employee's PF/ESIC contribution was deleted as it was paid before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of a bonafide mistake was acceptable, considering the assessee brought the error to the AO's notice and filed a revised computation. Therefore, the assessee could not be charged with concealing income.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for denial were curable and could have been better addressed with specific queries. The assessee had taken steps to rectify the trust deed and clarified ownership issues.
The tribunal rectified the previous order to state that all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. This corrigendum is to be read along with the original order.
The Tribunal held that provision for known liabilities should be allowed as deduction, and such provisions are ascertained liabilities for book profit computation. It also directed deletion of modvat credit disallowance and allowed set off of unabsorbed depreciation against business income and capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was genuine, especially since it was treated as genuine in the hands of the joint venture partners by the revenue. Consequently, the expenditure incurred for acquiring the interest in the land was considered a business expense, and the interest on borrowed funds was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was genuine, especially since it was treated as genuine in the hands of the joint venture partners by the revenue. Consequently, the expenditure incurred for acquiring the interest in the land was considered a business expense, and the interest on borrowed funds was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was wrong in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable. The non-payment of appeal fee was a rectifiable defect, and since it was rectified before the final determination, the appeal should have been admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable due to a rectifiable defect. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, especially when the defect was rectified and the reasons for delay were bona fide.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's objection was not justified, as benefiting a section of the public can still qualify as a charitable purpose, citing a Karnataka High Court judgment. The matter was restored to the CIT to examine the application afresh in light of section 12AA(1) requirements.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A requires the AO to examine the facts of each case and disallow expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the assessee claimed no expenditure for earning exempt income, the disallowance made by the AO was not tenable.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of proportionate expenses attributable to house property income to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding property maintenance expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim for deduction against business income, bypassing the technicality of a belated revised return.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record specific satisfaction regarding the nature of the offence (concealment or inaccurate particulars) before initiating penalty proceedings. The penalty notice was also found to be vague, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced municipal taxes borne by the assessee were in the nature of rent, not a direct tax liability, and therefore Section 43B was not applicable. The expenditure was allowable as per the mercantile system of accounting.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the entire amount of purchases could not be added as bogus since sales were not disputed. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to make an addition of 12.5% of the total bogus purchases.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of proportionate expenses attributable to house property income to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding property maintenance expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim for deduction against business income, bypassing the technicality of a belated revised return.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's order was untenable as the basis for revision changed from the show-cause notice without affording the assessee an opportunity to explain the new grounds. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's objection to the provision's scientific basis to be without merit.