Loading ITAT cases…
462 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A must be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned. It also held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee were for copyrighted articles and not for royalty, as there was no transfer of copyright. Following the principle of interpreting in favour of the taxpayer when there are conflicting views, the Tribunal confirmed the FAA's order.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars and instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals are applicable to all appeals, including those related to TDS matters under Section 195. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to establish that the tax effect in the remaining appeals exceeded the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) was not fully allowable due to potential violations of Section 80IB(10)(f) (selling multiple units to the same person), a pro-rata deduction could not be denied. The matter was remanded for detailed verification of flat sales.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and that the AO was justified in making an addition. The CIT(A) had already reduced the addition to 7.5% of the bogus purchases, which the Tribunal found reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing with the estimation of profit on bogus purchases at 4.60%. This decision was based on a previous dismissal of the revenue's appeal on the same issue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the 12.5% disallowance. For the assessee's appeal, the stock difference issue was remanded for de novo adjudication, and the bogus purchase issue was also remanded due to the assessee's non-appearance.
The Tribunal, finding identical facts to previous years, followed the coordinate bench's decision and upheld the CIT(A)'s order granting exemption.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order which estimated profits on alleged bogus purchases, considering the assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of transactions and the possibility of obtaining material from the grey market. The estimation of profits was deemed reasonable and fair.
The tribunal held that the income from warehousing activities should be treated as business income, not income from house property. It also found the reopening of assessment for AY 2008-09 to be flawed, based on a mere change of opinion.
The tribunal held that the income from warehousing activities should be treated as business income, not income from house property. It also found the reopening of assessment for AY 2008-09 to be flawed, based on a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking revisional jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer's failure to investigate unsecured loans made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's direction to re-frame the assessment after providing due opportunity to the assessee was affirmed.