Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal dismissed the delayed appeal due to lack of reasonable cause for the delay. Regarding the cross-appeals, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the valuation of closing stock and low yield, thus allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and rejected the assessee's arguments for excluding certain investments from the calculation. The Tribunal also rejected the claim for deduction of legal and professional fees as it was disallowed by the assessee in its original return.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the disputed purchases. However, it found the estimated gross profit of 14.75% on these purchases to be on the higher side.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) based on the principle that interest-free funds exceeded investments in tax-free income-yielding assets. The matter of AIR transactions was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant credit for TDS on the basis of evidence produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added to the book profit computed under Section 115JB. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the exclusion of investments that did not yield exempt income.
The Tribunal dismissed the delayed appeal due to lack of reasonable cause for the delay. Regarding the cross-appeals, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the valuation of closing stock and low yield, thus allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. It confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation on leased assets purchased from third parties, while disallowing it where the supplier and lessee were the same entity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to indexation cost from the date of the agreement, not the date of possession. This decision was based on the interpretation of 'held' in Section 2(42A) and relevant case law.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT(Exemption) vs. Subros Educational Society. These judgments allowed the set-off of excess expenditure from earlier years against subsequent income for charitable trusts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason provided to be reasonable. It further held that the assessment under Section 153A was bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search, quashing the assessments for all four years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to rent payments, unpaid VAT/service tax, and employee PF contributions. The Tribunal found that the rent payment was covered by an agreement, the VAT/service tax was not debited to P&L, and PF contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that lease rentals paid on leasehold land cannot be regarded as capital in nature merely because the lease period exceeds 12 years, following its own prior decision. It also allowed salary expenses incurred for business expansion as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that mark-to-market losses on derivative instruments are allowable deductions, following established jurisprudence. For Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance based on sufficient own funds and remanded the administrative expense disallowance for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 153C was bad in law because the Assessing Officer of the searched party had not recorded the required satisfaction. Therefore, the jurisdictional issue raised in the assessee's cross objection was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the delayed appeal due to lack of reasonable cause for the delay. Regarding the cross-appeals, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the valuation of closing stock and low yield, thus allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established. The revenue failed to provide evidence of a modus operandi for unaccounted money being introduced as share capital.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. Following that precedent, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of technical services to 50% of the amount claimed, following established precedents for prior assessment years. For the assessee's appeal, one issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, while another regarding Section 80-IA deduction for interest income was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason provided to be reasonable. It further held that the assessment under Section 153A was bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search, quashing the assessments for all four years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason provided to be reasonable. It further held that the assessment under Section 153A was bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search, quashing the assessments for all four years.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and adjudication in light of the presented evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason provided to be reasonable. It further held that the assessment under Section 153A was bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search, quashing the assessments for all four years.
The Tribunal held that mark-to-market losses on derivative instruments are allowable deductions, following established jurisprudence. For Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance based on sufficient own funds and remanded the administrative expense disallowance for re-computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to rent payments, unpaid VAT/service tax, and employee PF contributions. The Tribunal found that the rent payment was covered by an agreement, the VAT/service tax was not debited to P&L, and PF contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was valid. It further directed that the addition for non-genuine purchases should be sustained at 12.5% of such purchases, considering it a reasonable view.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an assessment is made on an estimation basis. Following its own coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal ruled that no penalty is leviable in such circumstances.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination of the Written Down Value (WDV) of the plant and machinery and to allow depreciation as per law. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the professional fees were allowable as the liability crystallized in the current year upon raising of the bill, and the genuineness was not doubted. Regarding director's remuneration, the Tribunal found no tax evasion and that the remuneration was reasonable, especially considering the increased turnover and recent regulatory changes allowing higher remuneration in cases of losses for unlisted companies.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had the benefit of recent Supreme Court and Special Bench decisions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for recomputation of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that mark-to-market losses on derivative instruments are allowable deductions, following established jurisprudence. For Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance based on sufficient own funds and remanded the administrative expense disallowance for re-computation.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under Section 234C. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on revalued cost, following earlier precedents. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that mark-to-market losses on derivative instruments are allowable deductions, following established jurisprudence. For Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest disallowance based on sufficient own funds and remanded the administrative expense disallowance for re-computation.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under Section 234C. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on revalued cost, following earlier precedents. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to provide relevant documents. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the assessment order on which it was based was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly treated the capital gain as short-term, as the agreement for sale was dated after the purchase. Consequently, the penalty for concealment was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked a decision on merits and was not a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s 4% profit rate to be on the lower side. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying an additional profit rate of 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the payments to the family concern were at fair market value and supported by business expediency. It also held that the advances to the sister concern were part of a running business transaction, not interest-free loans, thus deleting the disallowance of interest expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of purchases, citing judicial pronouncements and the assessee's maintenance of quantitative details. It also confirmed the eligibility for additional depreciation on diamond cutting and polishing, following previous rulings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years regarding both the Annual Letting Value (ALV) and the Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under Section 234C. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on revalued cost, following earlier precedents. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that sales tax exemption is a capital receipt, not taxable. It also confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on alleged bogus purchases and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 80IA deduction. The matter of Section 115JB addition was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and rejected the assessee's arguments for excluding certain investments from the calculation. The Tribunal also rejected the claim for deduction of legal and professional fees as it was disallowed by the assessee in its original return.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, estimating profit at 12.5%. The assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of purchases before any authority led to this decision.
The tribunal directed to delete ITA No.1931/Mum/2016 from the previous order as it was incorrectly included and not part of the proceedings.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 7,70,160/- sustained by the CIT(A), following High Court decisions which state that no expenses can be disallowed under Section 14A if no exempt income has been earned.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was untenable due to non-application of mind and vagueness, violating the principles of natural justice. The notice failed to specify the exact charge for which penalty was being levied.
The Tribunal held that once there is no exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance of expenses can be made under Section 14A. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Limited was respectfully followed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the AO and that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence submitted. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO.