Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It noted that the assessee followed the percentage completion method and that the Assessing Officer had not made similar additions in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to improper sanction for issuing the notice. Furthermore, on merits, the addition was unsustainable as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the third parties whose statements were used, and no independent enquiry was conducted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is to be made if the assessee has no exempt income during the year. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the assessee's claim of no exempt income.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee intended to claim deductibility of the liabilities in the year they were paid off.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act contemplates a situation where a property is vacant for the whole year, and the intention to let, along with efforts made, should be considered. The lower authorities had misconstrued the scope of this section.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made solely based on the deeming provisions of Section 50C, as it does not imply concealment of income. Similarly, a claim for deduction, even if not sustainable, does not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made solely based on the deeming provisions of Section 50C, as it does not imply concealment of income. Similarly, a claim for deduction, even if not sustainable, does not automatically attract penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be restricted to amounts received during the year, aligning with the cash system of accounting. The deletion of Rs. 96,17,000/- by the CIT(A) was upheld as it prevented double taxation and was in line with previous Tribunal directions.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to examine the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transaction after the assessee provides the necessary documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the concession by the Departmental Representative that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5% of the amount, considering the profit margins in the cloth business. The issue regarding advances paid in cash was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as there was no transfer of capital asset from the firm to the retiring partner. The addition made by the AO was consequential to a previous order that was later overruled by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the advances to Terrafirma Realty, including for share acquisition and as security for venture capital financing, were made for business expediency. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was not justified.
The Tribunal held that while the addition in the assessment was justified due to unproved purchases, it did not automatically warrant a penalty. The assessee's explanation was unproved but not conclusively disproved by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for reimbursement expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence of reimbursement and TDS deduction by recipients. The matter of Section 14A disallowance was restored to the AO for computation under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The disallowance for post-retirement benefits was deleted, following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of ALV at 7% of investment by the AO and CIT(A) was not justified. It directed the AO to determine the standard rent as per the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, if applicable, or leave it to the parties to get it determined by the Court or Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable to loans received from an individual director.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that even if flats were independently acquired, if they were merged and used as a single residential unit, exemption under Section 54 is allowable. The Tribunal relied on High Court judgments supporting this view.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s finding on the disallowance under Section 14A and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal also restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, following the Bombay High Court's decision in 'All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.' and the Tribunal's own prior order in the assessee's case. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect for one assessment year was below the threshold for appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's action in issuing the notice under Section 148, finding it valid. Regarding the estimation of income, the Tribunal found that the building project was completed and the assessee was liable to disclose the entire revenue for the year.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it contradicted his own finding that the purchases were bogus but restricted the addition without proper reasoning. Therefore, the Pr. CIT validly revised the order.
The Tribunal held that Section 271AA, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2012, which imposes penalty for non-reporting of international transactions, was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The law prevailing at the time of filing the return should be applied.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove genuineness, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. Following Gujarat High Court's precedent, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove genuineness, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. Following Gujarat High Court's precedent, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments yielding exempt income. It also held that Section 14A cannot be applied for computing book profit under Section 115JB, except as stipulated in clause (f) of Explanation 1.
The Tribunal held that the issue of exemption under Section 11 was covered in favor of the assessee by a previous High Court judgment in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the denial of exemption was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the issue of exemption under Section 11 was covered in favor of the assessee by a previous High Court judgment in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the denial of exemption was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without properly adjudicating the issues of reopening and the merits of the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted both issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was claiming a business loss, not just an expenditure under Section 37(1). Considering the legal opinion and the fact that the transaction was genuine, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the write-off.
The Tribunal held that the payment to the foreign company was subject to Section 40(a)(i) and not Section 40(a)(ia). However, since the assessee claimed depreciation and did not prove the software was 'off-the-shelf', the disallowance was sustained to the extent of depreciation claimed.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments yielding exempt income. It also held that Section 14A cannot be applied for computing book profit under Section 115JB, except as stipulated in clause (f) of Explanation 1.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred in India does not constitute an international transaction under Section 92B of the Act unless there is a specific arrangement between the assessee and the AE. It further held that the bright line test or similar methods not provided in the statute cannot be used for determining the arm's length price of AMP expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of processing raw seeds into a marketable commodity, which renders them inedible for consumption and usable only for cultivation, constitute manufacturing. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the addition is based on the preponderance of probability, the explanation is unproved but not disproved, or there is merely a change in the head of income. The admission of a substantial question of law by the High Court also indicates a debatable issue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable as it was based on an erroneous premise from earlier assessment years. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, which had deleted similar disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to distinguish the assessee's case from its sister concern's case, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the relief granted by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding a reasonable belief for not substantiating the claim earlier due to its acceptance in prior years. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included documents showing the loan details and property acquisition. However, since these documents were not presented before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act contemplates a situation where a property is vacant for the whole year, and the intention to let, along with efforts made, should be considered. The lower authorities had misconstrued the scope of this section.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation, mark-to-market loss, and ESOP expenses, following its own prior rulings. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed regarding the Section 14A disallowance, with directions to recompute based on specific criteria.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of receiving only Rs. 6.25 crore was false, as the sale deed and payment receipts clearly indicated the full consideration of Rs. 7 crore was received. Consequently, the penalty for suppressing income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the sale of FSI with cogent documentary evidence. The available documents were an unregistered agreement and a letter, which were insufficient. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation, mark-to-market loss, and ESOP expenses, following its own prior rulings. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed regarding the Section 14A disallowance, with directions to recompute based on specific criteria.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for infrastructure development activities, partly allowing the claim for certain projects. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal agreed that the reopening of assessment was invalid as no new information came to the AO's notice.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below the threshold limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should receive the benefit of VAT paid on the purchases deemed non-genuine. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the VAT payment and reduce it from the addition made.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 147. While the entire addition for non-genuine purchases was not sustained, a profit element of 12.5% on the non-genuine purchases was added back to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition at 12.5% of purchases from two parties, as the assessee could not conclusively prove their genuineness but had reconciled purchases with sales. The addition for purchases from a third party was deleted due to lack of proper enquiry by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not 'make available' technical knowledge, and thus were not FTS. It also found that the assessee did not have a PE in India as the communication network was not owned or at its disposal.