Loading ITAT cases…
491 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in education and research in banking and finance, and its activities do not have a profit motive. The proviso to Section 2(15) does not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in education and research in banking and finance, and its activities do not have a profit motive. The proviso to Section 2(15) does not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Sections 11 & 12 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. For the Section 2(22)(e) issue, it was covered by a prior favorable ruling.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while purchases might not be entirely bogus, the parties were not traceable and acted as conduits. Considering the assessee's agreement, an additional 10% gross profit was added to plug revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. For the Section 2(22)(e) issue, it was covered by a prior favorable ruling.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions in similar cases, upheld the CIT(A)'s view on actuarial valuation and tax neutrality of transfers. It also allowed the deduction of provision for fringe benefit tax/wealth tax as an allowable expense.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding consultant doctors, directing the AO to re-examine the employer-employee relationship in light of High Court rulings. For AMCs, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the assessee's failure to provide contract details.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while purchases might not be entirely bogus, the parties were not traceable and acted as conduits. Considering the assessee's agreement, an additional 10% gross profit was added to plug revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that expenses like freight, telecommunication charges, or insurance, if incurred in foreign exchange, should be excluded from both 'export turnover' and 'total turnover' when calculating the deduction under Section 10A. However, the assessee's specific contentions regarding the nature of these expenses were not examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding consultant doctors, directing the AO to re-examine the employer-employee relationship in light of High Court rulings. For AMCs, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the assessee's failure to provide contract details.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years based on a change of opinion and an audit objection, without any new material, is not permissible. The assessee had made a full and true disclosure of material facts during the original assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding consultant doctors, directing the AO to re-examine the employer-employee relationship in light of High Court rulings. For AMCs, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the assessee's failure to provide contract details.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding consultant doctors, directing the AO to re-examine the employer-employee relationship in light of High Court rulings. For AMCs, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the assessee's failure to provide contract details.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding consultant doctors, directing the AO to re-examine the employer-employee relationship in light of High Court rulings. For AMCs, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the assessee's failure to provide contract details.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed against a deceased person are void ab initio and invalid in law. The court cited various High Court decisions supporting this principle.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years based on a change of opinion and an audit objection, without any new material, is not permissible. The assessee had made a full and true disclosure of material facts during the original assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted the assessee's request not to press the appeal. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding consultant doctors, directing the AO to re-examine the employer-employee relationship in light of High Court rulings. For AMCs, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision due to the assessee's failure to provide contract details.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which held that when the High Court admits an appeal on a substantial question of law, the issue is debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
The Tribunal held that trial runs constitute 'use' for business purposes, allowing depreciation. It also ruled that statutory payments, erection, commissioning, and transportation expenses for the windmill are part of its cost and eligible for the full depreciation rate.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, on which the penalty was based, were set aside to the file of the AO for re-adjudication, the penalty did not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow reconsideration of issues in light of additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the agent was an independent agent, not a dependent agent PE, based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the assessee did not have a PE in India, and its income was not taxable.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Act was not applicable as the sale consideration was higher than the stamp valuation. The addition made by the Assessing Officer based on DVO's valuation was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of administrative expenses, deleting the amount based on the coordinate bench's decision. The issue of interest disallowance was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. Following consistent orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when no addition is made under Section 115JB and the assessment is completed under that section. The tax sought to be evaded is determined based on the difference between the tax on assessed income and the tax on returned income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and set it aside. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following a similar decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The CIT(A) was directed to examine the claim of setting off speculation losses.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee continued to show the liability in its books and the creditor's confirmation letter indicated the claim was not foregone, the cessation of liability under Section 41(1) was not established for the year in question. The subsequent offering of the amount to tax further supported the assessee's position.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, following its own earlier order for a prior assessment year on an identical issue. The Tribunal noted that the issue of set-off of losses when returns are filed beyond the due date is debatable.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the agricultural land, situated outside municipal limits and more than 8 km away, was not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, no capital gains tax was leviable on its sale.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow reconsideration of issues in light of additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction before invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal followed its previous order for AY 2006-07, where it directed that gains from sale of shares held for more than a year should be treated as Long Term Capital Gain, not business income. The current appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow reconsideration of issues in light of additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the commencement of construction of the new residential house can precede the date of sale of the old asset, as long as the construction is completed within the stipulated time. Payments made prior to the sale, including stamp duty, registration, and other associated costs, are allowable for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on leased assets was a recurring dispute decided in favour of the assessee in preceding years, following Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The Tribunal also addressed disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A, finding sufficient interest-free funds available with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure under section 14A is not warranted when interest-free funds exceed investments in tax-free securities. It also ruled that adjustments for section 14A disallowances cannot be made to book profit computed under section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lacs or less should not be filed or should be withdrawn. This circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been decided in favor of the assessee. The assessment order was declared invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing him to decide it by following the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for a previous assessment year. This decision had allowed similar issues for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow reconsideration of issues in light of additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow reconsideration of issues in light of additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection and allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on BOT rights as an intangible asset. The Tribunal also restored issues related to Section 14A disallowances to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, set aside the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to allow reconsideration of issues in light of additional evidence and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not seeking a remand report or examining the facts. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was being imposed, both in the assessment order and the show cause notice. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO must clearly specify the limb under which penalty is proposed to be levied to ensure natural justice. Since the AO initiated proceedings for one charge and imposed penalty for another, the penalty order was unsustainable.