Loading ITAT cases…
329 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that DDT is to be treated as tax paid, and the assessee is entitled to a refund of the excess amount. The CIT(A)'s decision to deny the refund based on the definition of 'tax' was found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the tax practitioner made a bona fide mistake by copying and pasting capital and investment details from another assessee's return. The addition made under Section 68 was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim to compute LTCG based on saleable plots is revenue-neutral. This is because the value of roads and amenities, though not directly sold, would increase the sale price of the plots, leading to higher business income taxed at a higher rate.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing on principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Since the assessee had fulfilled the requirements of the scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation plausible. It also held that the addition made by the AO on account of the purchase price of shares was unsustainable, as it was paid by cheque and had no element of undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details of parties, including PAN and bank details, shifting the onus to the Revenue to prove the transactions were not genuine. The Revenue failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the assessee received back funds or benefits, relying merely on address verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing depreciation on goodwill. It also ruled that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable to the assessee, and that the benefit of brought forward losses should be allowed post-amalgamation.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions without clear evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted as the disallowance was based on an estimate.
The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to adequately verify the assessee's claim for deduction of interest expenditure, particularly concerning the use of the newly acquired property and the allowability of interest on other properties. Therefore, the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that since the deposits in the foreign bank account undisputedly belonged to the assessee's mother, the interest income arising therefrom should be taxed in her hands only. The assessee's status as a joint holder with operational rights did not justify taxing the interest income in her hands.
The Tribunal held that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic and requires the AO to record objective satisfaction regarding the assessee's computation. The AO failed to establish a nexus between the expenditure and exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS returns was a technical breach and not a loss to the exchequer, as taxes were duly deposited on time. The assessee had reasonable cause for the delay, and the deductees had claimed credit for TDS.
The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, treated the appeals as disposed of as withdrawn, given the assessee's decision to opt for the VVS Scheme for dispute resolution.
The Tribunal held that since the deposits in the foreign bank account undisputedly belonged to the assessee's mother, the interest income arising therefrom should be taxed in her hands only. The assessee's status as a joint holder with operational rights did not justify taxing the interest income in her hands.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly analyzed the expenditure as revenue in nature, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's order to be based on surmises without cogent material.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to settle the dispute. Both the assessee's representative and the Revenue's representative agreed to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the unaccounted expenses entirely. It directed the AO to add 20% of the gross unaccounted receipts as income, considering the benefit of cash discounts and other savings. The addition on account of unexplained capital contribution was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity. It clarified that the disallowance under Section 14A is not required when there is no exempt income, distinguishing the facts from the Maxopp Investment Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of 50% of the interest income, which was sustained by the CIT(A), was subsequently vacated by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty imposed on this amount could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that once borrowed funds are used for business purposes, the interest paid on such borrowings is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The fact that interest income was not received from one borrower due to financial distress does not negate the deductibility of interest on borrowed funds used for business.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. Following High Court precedents, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the possibility of gray market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the one-time premium paid to the bank for ensuring a continuous supply of gold is an addition to the purchase cost of gold and not a commission. Therefore, TDS under Section 194H was not applicable, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that deposits made for utilities and the WDV of discarded fixed assets attached to the transferred property should be allowed as a deduction while computing capital gains.
The Tribunal restored the disallowance for professional/legal fees to the AO for verification of compliance with the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The mismatch in receipts was also restored to the AO for re-verification. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted, following a previous ruling.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement is not finalized.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has no power to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) remanding the issue was not sustainable. The ITAT directed that the issue be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.