Loading ITAT cases…
488 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal allowed the ground related to disallowance of interest expenditure and de-mat charges, finding merit in the assessee's contentions. However, an additional ground regarding the invalidity of reopening was dismissed as not pressed. Issues concerning set-off/carry forward of business loss and depreciation were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiry regarding cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that municipal taxes related to leased property should be allowed as deduction under 'income from house property'. For material, maintenance, and overhead expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of allocation between leased and under-construction parts of the building.
The Tribunal held that municipal taxes related to leased property should be allowed as deduction under 'income from house property', and expenses related to material, maintenance, and overheads require verification by the Assessing Officer to determine their proportion related to the leased building.
The Tribunal held that municipal taxes related to leased parts of a building are eligible for deduction under 'income from house property'. For material and maintenance expenses, the issue of proportion relating to the leased building was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that municipal taxes related to leased property should be allowed as deduction under 'income from house property'. For material, maintenance, and overhead expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of allocation between leased and under-construction parts of the building.
The Tribunal held that municipal taxes related to leased property should be allowed as deduction under 'income from house property'. For material, maintenance, and overhead expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of allocation between leased and under-construction parts of the building.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the validity of reassessment to the CIT(A) for adjudication. Regarding the addition on commission, the matter was also sent back to the CIT(A) for determination based on material evidence.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be added. For AY 2009-10, the addition was restricted to 5% of bogus purchases. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the additions made by the lower authorities were considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the income from sale of shares and units should be treated as capital gains, not business income. It also allowed a partial deduction for expenses and allowed the appeal concerning the buyback of shares, quashing the addition made for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding unfamiliarity with e-filing and lack of an authorized representative did not constitute a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal found the assessee's attitude to be cavalier, especially given the failure to respond to the CIT(A)'s notice and correct the statutory form.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be added. For AY 2009-10, the addition was restricted to 5% of bogus purchases. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the additions made by the lower authorities were considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling that such disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be added. For AY 2009-10, the addition was restricted to 5% of bogus purchases. For AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, the additions made by the lower authorities were considered fair and reasonable.
The ITAT found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the validity of reassessment to the CIT(A) for adjudication. Regarding the addition on commission, the matter was also sent back to the CIT(A) for determination based on material evidence.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary documents and make submissions before the First Appellate Authority.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the facts regarding the nature of interest income and expenditure. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine whether the interest income was business income or income from other sources, and to re-examine the deductibility of interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee regarding unfamiliarity with e-filing and lack of an authorized representative did not constitute a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal found the assessee's attitude to be cavalier, especially given the failure to respond to the CIT(A)'s notice and correct the statutory form.
The Tribunal held that municipal taxes related to leased property should be allowed as deduction under 'income from house property'. For material, maintenance, and overhead expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of allocation between leased and under-construction parts of the building.
The Tribunal held that municipal taxes related to leased property should be allowed as deduction under 'income from house property'. For material, maintenance, and overhead expenses, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of allocation between leased and under-construction parts of the building.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the facts regarding the nature of interest income and expenditure. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine whether the interest income was business income or income from other sources, and to re-examine the deductibility of interest expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the facts regarding the nature of interest income and expenditure. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine whether the interest income was business income or income from other sources, and to re-examine the deductibility of interest expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the facts regarding the nature of interest income and expenditure. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine whether the interest income was business income or income from other sources, and to re-examine the deductibility of interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the affidavit explaining the delay was not filed by an authorized person of the assessee company. The status of the signatory differed between the appeal form and the affidavit, and it was unclear how the signatory was authorized to represent the company after directors' resignations.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the facts regarding the nature of interest income and expenditure. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine whether the interest income was business income or income from other sources, and to re-examine the deductibility of interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to the person in whose books sums are credited and does not allow the deeming fiction to travel to other assessees. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without testing them in the hands of the assessees.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to the person in whose books sums are credited and does not allow the deeming fiction to travel to other assessees. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without testing them in the hands of the assessees.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to the person in whose books sums are credited and does not allow the deeming fiction to travel to other assessees. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without testing them in the hands of the assessees.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act applies to the person in whose books sums are credited and does not allow the deeming fiction to travel to other assessees. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions without testing them in the hands of the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, including financial crisis and non-availability of funds, do not constitute reasonable cause. The tampering of an affidavit further raised suspicion about the veracity of the claims.
The Tribunal held that the GSA receipts are not taxable as FIS under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA because the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian entities.
The Tribunal held that the GSA receipts are not taxable as FIS under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA because the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian entities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper finding on the eligibility of set off for the brought forward losses from AY 2010-11 to 2014-15. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the GSA receipts are not taxable as FIS under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA because the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian entities.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal concerning interest income and ESOP expenditure. It followed previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a developer of infrastructure facilities and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal followed its own previous orders and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal concerning interest income and ESOP expenditure. It followed previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 3% on non-genuine purchases. This decision was based on the report of the Task Force for the Diamond Sector, which recommended profit ranges for trading and manufacturing businesses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 3% on non-genuine purchases. This decision was based on the report of the Task Force for the Diamond Sector, which recommended profit ranges for trading and manufacturing businesses.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal concerning interest income and ESOP expenditure. It followed previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 3% on non-genuine purchases. This decision was based on the report of the Task Force for the Diamond Sector, which recommended profit ranges for trading and manufacturing businesses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee qualified as a developer of infrastructure facilities and was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld, following previous tribunal orders and jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal concerning interest income and ESOP expenditure. It followed previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had ignored the assessee's adjournment request and proceeded ex-parte, which was a gross violation of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's suspicion regarding the valuation was insufficient without supporting material to disprove the assessee's justification. The valuation of shares is a question of fact, and the lower appellate authorities had concurrently accepted the assessee's valuation.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) irrespective of the accounting method followed. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s disallowance to the extent of interest debited to the profit and loss account.