Loading ITAT cases…
362 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to substantiate the required information. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and comply with the information sought.
The Tribunal held that computer software, including licenses, falls under the block of 'computers and computer software' eligible for depreciation at 60%. This is based on judicial precedents that classify software licenses as application software, not merely intangible rights.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order upholding the denial of deduction was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, as it was not established that the notices were properly served and the appeal was dismissed solely on grounds of non-prosecution. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the CIT(E) might not have been properly served and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the CIT(E) might not have been properly served and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat, distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal remanded the gratuity provision issue to the AO for verification and upheld the disallowance of employee's PF contribution based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The credit for Dividend Distribution Tax was allowed after due verification.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) decided the appeal on an issue not raised by the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts were followed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts were followed.
The Tribunal held that since the entire capital gains were already taxed in the hands of the assessee's brother and this was upheld by a coordinate bench, the addition in the assessee's hands was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was directed to be deleted.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the nexus of interest-free funds with advances made from a common pool of funds, thus confirming the disallowance of interest. It also confirmed the treatment of business center income as income from house property, following earlier years' orders.
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade should not be included for computing disallowance under Section 14A. It also ruled that the assessee's share trading loss should be treated as business loss, not speculation loss, as its gross total income mainly comprised capital gains and income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares constituted capital gains, not business income. It reasoned that the consideration was embedded in the share price and not separately paid for termination of management control, which is considered a capital asset.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material and acted on borrowed satisfaction. The reasons recorded were undated and issued by different officers, indicating a mechanical exercise.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to tax the amount received for relinquishment of development rights as income. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that the amount should be treated as a reduction of Work-in-Progress (WIP).
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT's revisionary order was quashed because the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view, especially since no set-off of brought forward losses was claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated and orders passed in the name of a deceased person, especially when notices under section 153C were issued to the deceased, are invalid and unenforceable. The participation of the legal heir does not cure this defect.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated and orders passed in the name of a deceased person, especially when notices under section 153C were issued to the deceased, are invalid and unenforceable. The participation of the legal heir does not cure this defect.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated and orders passed in the name of a deceased person, especially when notices under section 153C were issued to the deceased, are invalid and unenforceable. The participation of the legal heir does not cure this defect.
The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, holding that a foreign AE with less complex functions can be considered the tested party. However, it confirmed the disallowance for belated PF/ESIC payments, following the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's agricultural activities and the loan from the holding company were genuine and supported by evidence. The addition of agricultural receipts was deleted, and the addition for the loan from the holding company was also deleted, finding that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were proved.
The tribunal held that reopening the assessment solely to revise the depreciation rate, when the original assessment involved a conscious decision on the same facts, constitutes a change of opinion. Such reopening is not permitted under the law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the material on record and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issue. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim after verifying the provided documents.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of the entire purchases could not be doubted due to corresponding sales, only the profit margin embedded in these transactions should be taxed. The disallowance of expenses was also reduced from 20% to 10%.
The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were explained by cash withdrawals and were accounted for in the assessee's books of account, they could not be treated as unexplained money. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., delayed deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund beyond the statutory due date is not eligible for deduction. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent cancellation of the trust's approval under Section 35(1)(ii) with retrospective effect cannot invalidate the assessee's claim if the approval was valid and subsisting at the time the donation was made. The assessee had acted upon a valid approval when making the donation.
The Tribunal held that the trade liabilities were part of a running account and there was no evidence of cessation, making Section 41(1) inapplicable. The ad hoc disallowance was also deemed invalid without proper basis.
The Tribunal is hearing appeals filed by the assessee challenging the assessment order. The facts of the appeals are identical, and a consolidated order is being passed. The assessee is engaged in providing legal services.
The Tribunal held that mere making of a claim not sustainable in law, or disallowances due to statutory provisions or debatable issues, do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as vendor statements or proof of cash changing hands, to substantiate the addition. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's limited capital and lack of business activity, making such large unaccounted expenditures improbable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on estimated additions, especially when sales are not disputed. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on estimated additions, especially when sales are not disputed. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing all necessary documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. The AO's reliance on statements of third parties without confronting the assessee or disproving the evidence was not sufficient.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated and orders passed in the name of a deceased person, especially when notices under section 153C were issued to the deceased, are invalid and unenforceable. The participation of the legal heir does not cure this defect.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the AO's mechanical approval of reopening and incorrect mention of Section 147(b). Furthermore, the PCIT's revision was based on an incorrect assumption of facts regarding penny stock guidelines for unlisted scrips.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not properly presented as they were not signed by the official liquidator. Furthermore, it was not established whether the tax liabilities were included in the liquidator's statement of affairs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable due to the non-payment of tax on the returned income. No evidence was presented to prove such payment, rendering further adjudication on merits unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The profit element embedded in such purchases should be estimated, not the entire amount.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's severe medical condition. It also decided to remit the case back to the AO to provide the assessee with another opportunity to furnish details and be heard.
The Tribunal held that the income from car rental should be assessed as business income based on the principle of consistency with earlier and subsequent assessment years. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deduction of all related expenses, including depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not properly presented as they were not signed by the official liquidator. Furthermore, it was not established whether the tax liabilities were included in the liquidator's statement of affairs.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and/or 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by the co-operative credit society from its investments in other co-operative banks and societies. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions that favored the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not properly presented as they were not signed by the official liquidator. Furthermore, it was not established whether the tax liabilities were included in the liquidator's statement of affairs.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not properly presented as they were not signed by the official liquidator. Furthermore, it was not established whether the tax liabilities were included in the liquidator's statement of affairs.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not properly presented as they were not signed by the official liquidator. Furthermore, it was not established whether the tax liabilities were included in the liquidator's statement of affairs.
The Tribunal held that the hardship compensation received by the assessee is a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt. Therefore, it cannot be taxed as income. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.
The ITAT decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for a reasoned order. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee for their delinquency.