Loading ITAT cases…
380 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that the short-term capital gains should be treated as capital gains, not business income, considering the assessee maintained separate portfolios and the revenue had accepted similar claims in prior years. The disallowance under Section 14A was directed to be computed considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the liability pertained to earlier years and was discharged during the year under consideration. The AO himself confirmed that the liability was from earlier years, thus it could not be treated as unexplained for the current year.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The CIT(A) had noted that the lease deed required written consent from RIICO for subletting or selling leasehold rights, which was not obtained. The CIT(A) also observed that physical possession was not given to the purchaser, and the Special Power of Attorney submitted to RIICO was allegedly tampered with. The AO failed to verify these facts with RIICO. Furthermore, the balance sheets submitted by the assessee showed the leasehold land and buildings as fixed assets as of March 31, 2008, and in subsequent years, supporting the contention that the land was not sold. The CIT(A) also relied on the fact that Rs. 20 lakh was shown as a deposit for land, appearing in the balance sheet since March 31, 2007. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s findings to be based on evidence and established legal principles, thus dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that unsold premises treated as stock-in-trade by a builder are not assessable under the head 'income from house property'. Income arising from the sale of such stock-in-trade is taxable as business income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate 10% net profit on gross receipts, considering the assessee's business as a Civil Contractor. The Tribunal found this estimation to be fair and reasonable, deviating from the general practice of remanding the matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars) and followed the precedent of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the ITeS segment and remanding the issue of one comparable in the R&D segment for re-adjudication. The Tribunal also directed to consider Profit Before Depreciation for benchmarking in the R&D segment.
The Tribunal held that the interest-free deposits were made from the assessee's own funds, following the Reliance Industries Ltd. decision. It also held that the rent and transfer fees were part of the unified construction activity and should be reduced from WIP.
The Tribunal held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and the assessee's claim was in line with judicial precedents available at that time.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to the inordinate delay and lack of valid reasons for condonation. The Tribunal found the assessee's conduct to be lackadaisical, further compounded by their absence during the hearing.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on margin money deposits, which are intrinsically linked to the project and placed for obtaining essential guarantees for its construction, should be reduced from the project costs. This is because such deposits are not for parking idle funds but are integral to the project's development.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had reasonably estimated the profit embedded in the bogus purchases, considering the VAT rate and an additional margin, and this estimation was not liable to be disturbed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the Assessing Officer mechanically invoked Rule 8D without rebutting the assessee's submissions on interest-free funds. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition under Section 68, stating that the law did not postulate adverse inference for non-justification of share premium prior to its introduction in AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C, as amended, was not applicable to transactions prior to its amendment, especially when the agreement was unregistered. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law and the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous year's decision, allowed the assessee's claims regarding reversal of income and prior period expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report for the land lacked veracity and the surrounding circumstances indicated a lack of genuineness. Therefore, the issue of land valuation was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration with a departmental valuer's report. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance on share sales, finding no material to doubt the transaction's genuineness or the price being higher than the negative NAV.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal for manual filing in the first year of mandatory e-filing was too technical and denied justice. It also found that the five-day notice period was insufficient for compliance, thus deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as the learned DR did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee provided benefits to the AE and should be compensated. Following its own precedent and the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the addition at 0.5% per annum.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. It was held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence, and the AO's addition was based solely on a retracted statement.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the disallowance is on an estimated basis, purchase vouchers and banking payments are in order, and sales are not doubted. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal held that the consideration received for the distribution of theatrical rights in India is not in the nature of royalty as defined by Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Therefore, it is not taxable in India. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification of the quantum of deduction and correct computation of royalty income.
The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous year's decision, allowed the assessee's claims regarding reversal of income and prior period expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding the use of premises as a godown was not ex facie bogus, and the mistake regarding MAT provisions was attributable to the auditor. Therefore, the assessee's conduct was not contumacious to warrant penalty.
The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous year's decision, allowed the assessee's claims regarding reversal of income and prior period expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the advances to the subsidiary were in line with the assessee's business expansion and had a direct nexus to its hospitality operations. The non-recovery of these advances was therefore allowed as a business loss.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts in the notes to the accounts, and therefore, the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous year's decision, allowed the assessee's claims regarding reversal of income and prior period expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss is a revenue outflow or expenditure and not a cost to be added to the inventory. Therefore, it cannot be added to the cost of closing stock.