Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid jurisdiction under Section 153C based on the statement admitting on-money receipts. However, on merits, the addition for on-money receipts was deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence and the assessee's submissions.
The tribunal decided to dismiss the ground related to interest expenses as it was not pressed by the assessee. For miscellaneous expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 50% of the original amount.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were purely support services and did not involve the transfer of technical know-how, thus not falling under 'fees for included services'. It also ruled that reimbursements of expenses are not revenue receipts.
The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without questioning the genuineness of expenses are not justified. For certain expenses, the AO did not dispute the genuineness or identity of recipients, making the disallowances unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the share of income from an AOP, which is not taxable under Section 86, should not be taxed under MAT provisions. The amendment to Section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2015, inserting clause (iic), was considered curative and retrospective, allowing such exclusion.
The Tribunal held that sanctioning of amounts for charitable purposes, even if disbursed in a later year, constitutes application of income under Section 11(1)(a). The word 'applied' does not necessarily mean 'spent'.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including FIRC, valuation reports, and board resolutions, to establish the genuineness and identity of the share applicant.
The Tribunal held that since the land was acquired without any cost of acquisition by the ancestors, no capital gains tax could be charged on its subsequent transfer. This decision followed the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that sanctioning of amounts for charitable purposes, even if disbursed in a later year, constitutes application of income under Section 11(1)(a). The word 'applied' does not necessarily mean 'spent'.
The Tribunal held that since the land was acquired without any cost of acquisition by the ancestors, no capital gains tax could be charged on its subsequent transfer. This decision followed the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that since the land was acquired without any cost of acquisition by the ancestors, no capital gains tax could be charged on its subsequent transfer. This decision followed the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of the purchases was doubtful, a 100% disallowance was not justified as the books of account were not rejected and the consumption of material was not in doubt. It was deemed appropriate to disallow a portion of the purchases to tax potential savings from grey market procurement.
The Tribunal held that the extinguishment of the assessee's right in the proposed flats constituted a transfer of a capital asset, leading to capital gains. The assessee was also eligible for deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that since the land was acquired without any cost of acquisition by the ancestors, no capital gains tax could be charged on its subsequent transfer. This decision followed the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's case, directed the AO to restrict the net profit addition to 2% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that since the land was acquired without any cost of acquisition by the ancestors, no capital gains tax could be charged on its subsequent transfer. This decision followed the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had started carrying out charitable activities in the subsequent financial year. The Departmental Representative agreed that the matter could be restored to the CIT(E) for re-consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record objective satisfaction before invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept the assessee's suo motu disallowance.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no income is claimed as exempt. Disallowances under Section 14A are not to be considered for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee might have saved a substantial amount from past incomes and could have kept it in cash. Therefore, a reasonable estimate for addition was made, reducing the addition from the AO's figure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details like PAN, bank statements, confirmations, and proof of TDS on interest payments. The AO's addition was based solely on a third-party statement without independent corroboration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had debited certain expenses (bank charges, custody fee, demat charges, STT) in the capital account, not claimed as business expenses, and relatable to earning the exempt income. Following its own precedent in a similar case, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on information from a pen drive and a third-party statement without corroborative evidence of the cash payment by the assessee. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued without jurisdiction as it was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and no transfer order was in place. Consequently, the assessment framed was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be upheld because the reasons for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, despite repeated requests. This violated the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. It found that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years without attributing any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted that the reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be upheld because the reasons for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, despite repeated requests. This violated the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal directed the AO to assess the assessee under Section 44AD of the Act on a presumptive basis. It was held that no further disallowance should be made after computing income under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, as all necessary details were provided during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was considered bad in law.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings for both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not permissible as these limbs are mutually exclusive. Following High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be upheld because the reasons for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, despite repeated requests. This violated the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be upheld because the reasons for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, despite repeated requests. This violated the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO towards notional rent, but the issue of deletion of the suo moto offered notional rent needed re-examination. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowances for business expenses and under Section 14A, as the AO had not recorded the necessary satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that sanctioning of amounts for charitable purposes, even if disbursed in a later year, constitutes application of income under Section 11(1)(a). The word 'applied' does not necessarily mean 'spent'.
The Tribunal held that interest on NPAs cannot be treated as accrued income for taxation purposes, especially when recovery is uncertain and against RBI prudential norms. This decision aligns with Supreme Court judgments on similar matters.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business of lending and financing. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore without basis.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order was set aside, the addition on account of capital gains would not survive. Regarding the deduction under section 35(1)(2), the issue was restored to the AO for a decision after the Bombay High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It held that the unsecured loans were indeed reflected in the previous year's balance sheet and the cash deposits were adequately explained as business income from used car sales, supported by bank statements and financial accounts.
The Tribunal held that interest on NPAs cannot be treated as accrued income for taxation purposes, especially when recovery is uncertain and against RBI prudential norms. This decision aligns with Supreme Court judgments on similar matters.
The Tribunal followed a previous order of a coordinate bench which had set aside the CIT's order under Section 263. Consequently, the AO's order passed under Section 143(3) was also quashed.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's case, directed the AO to restrict the net profit addition to 2% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing necessary details and evidence, including investor confirmations, PAN, returns, and bank statements. The Tribunal found that the AO could not question the charging of share premium without any legislative bar and that Section 142A of the Act did not empower the AO to conduct valuation for Section 68 purposes.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on technical grounds of not filing electronically, without considering merits, would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The electronic appeal was considered a continuation of the manual appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was reduced to an estimated 12.5% of the purchases, it is a case of estimation of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed in such a scenario.
The Tribunal held that the training and travel expenses incurred for Abhishek Shah were not personal but were for the benefit of the business. It also ruled that tax was not required to be deducted at source on payments made to foreign airlines for airfreight.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a real estate developer should not be assessed as income from house property. It relied on the amendment to Section 23(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides for a nil annual value for such properties.
The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating the average value of investments when computing disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as they were initiated within 4 years and based on tangible material suggesting escapement of income. The reassessment order was also found to be within the time limits stipulated by Section 153.