Loading ITAT cases…
293 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the amount of profit eligible under Section 10(38) should be considered for tax liability under Section 115JB, allowing the benefit of indexation for long-term capital gains. Other grounds were decided based on previous year's orders or dismissed as premature or consequential.
The Tribunal held that the assessee fund was a scheme listed under Schedule II of the Repeal Act and vested with UTI Mutual Fund, which was SEBI-approved. Therefore, a separate SEBI registration for the assessee fund was not required, and the exemption under Section 10(23D) was allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee fund was a scheme listed under Schedule II of the Repeal Act and vested with UTI Mutual Fund, which was SEBI-approved. Therefore, a separate SEBI registration for the assessee fund was not required, and the exemption under Section 10(23D) was allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee fund was a scheme listed under Schedule II of the Repeal Act and vested with UTI Mutual Fund, which was SEBI-approved. Therefore, a separate SEBI registration for the assessee fund was not required, and the exemption under Section 10(23D) was allowable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to produce crucial loan and share transaction documents before the lower authorities. However, new documents were filed before the Tribunal, necessitating verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty. It was reasoned that the assessee had disclosed all necessary facts and merely making a claim that was not accepted by the AO does not automatically amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee offered the amount to tax to avoid litigation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of gold ornaments sale/purchase to the AO for de novo adjudication, directing an opportunity for cross-examination and verification of sales to Mahavir Jewellers. The other grounds were either dismissed as not pressed or not separately adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the assessee purchased the property in AY 2013-14 from a third party, not the original builder, and the original sale agreement was not with the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee had paid more than the fair market value through banking channels.
The Tribunal restored the issue of gold ornaments sale/purchase to the AO for de novo adjudication, directing an opportunity for cross-examination and verification of sales to Mahavir Jewellers. The other grounds were either dismissed as not pressed or not separately adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that while the additional ground regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 was dismissed, the addition on account of bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element. The AO was directed to make the addition at the average rate of Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee on genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable as the disputed amount was an advance on which TDS was deducted, not income. However, the assessee was not entitled to claim full credit for TDS on this advance.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish any nexus between the assessee and the alleged entry operators or price rigging. The AO's addition was based on suspicion without cogent evidence linking the assessee to the manipulation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to the AO's failure to independently apply his mind to the information received and the presence of several defects in the reasons recorded. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct necessary inquiries, as per Explanation 2 to Section 263. The PCIT's revision order was therefore found to be valid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed the e-appeal within the extended period granted by the CBDT circular. Therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, and ITR acknowledgements. The Tribunal also noted that the primary evidence relied upon by the AO, the statement of the entry provider, was retracted.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner enhanced capital gains without providing the assessee an opportunity for a hearing, especially a requested video conference. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening by a separate speaking order, as mandated by Supreme Court and High Court decisions, vitiates the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to produce the broker or relevant documents to verify her claims. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a regular investor, had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares through stock exchanges and registered brokers. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal deleted the additions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) was being invoked. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's circumstances. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a deposit of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) was being invoked. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment, not the date of possession, should be considered for determining the holding period of the property for capital gains tax. Consequently, the authorities below were directed to recompute the capital gain based on the allotment date.
The Tribunal restored the issue of notional interest on loans to the subsidiary to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for recomputation, considering specific directions, and also directed to exclude such disallowance from book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for a decision on merits. This was done considering the peculiar circumstances of the director's detention and the subsequent delay in filing the appeal, along with the COVID-19 period exclusion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a salaried employee handling cash for others, could not have possessed such large amounts of cash from his own earnings. The Tribunal directed that the additions for cash and gold bars belonging to Topworth Properties and Shri Noshir Talati should not be made in the assessee's hands. However, for the remaining cash and gold bars, a 50% addition was deemed appropriate for justice.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 54. The assessee failed to substantiate the investment in the house property and did not fulfill the conditions for claiming the deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the foundation (CIT's Section 263 order) for the reassessment proceedings was removed by the Tribunal's earlier order, the subsequent reassessment order passed by the AO is null and void. The Tribunal relied on the legal maxim 'Sublato fundamento credit opus'.
The Tribunal held that the surplus on demerger, adjusted against brought forward losses, was correctly treated as a capital profit and not includible in book profits under Section 115JB. The disallowance of legal and professional fees under Section 35DD was also examined.
The Tribunal held that the surplus on demerger, adjusted against brought forward losses, was correctly treated as a capital profit and not includible in book profits under Section 115JB. The disallowance of legal and professional fees under Section 35DD was also examined.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had not recorded satisfaction regarding the incurrence of expenditure in relation to exempt income. Furthermore, the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not properly verify the explanations and documents provided by the assessee to reconcile the difference in stock. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the surplus on demerger, adjusted against brought forward losses, was correctly treated as a capital profit and not includible in book profits under Section 115JB. The disallowance of legal and professional fees under Section 35DD was also examined.
The Tribunal held that, based on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions, the jurisdiction of the ITAT is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Therefore, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the delay was not intentional and was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing adequate opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the surplus on demerger, adjusted against brought forward losses, was correctly treated as a capital profit and not includible in book profits under Section 115JB. The disallowance of legal and professional fees under Section 35DD was also examined.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal for AY 2013-14 was still pending. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO to allow the brought forward loss in accordance with law after the decision of the AY 2013-14 appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's contentions before the CIT(A) required factual verification, which could not be done due to the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh verification of the transactions.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including challans and a revised tax audit report. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was due to a potential change in the assessee's email address leading to non-receipt of notices.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was due to a potential change in the assessee's email address leading to non-receipt of notices.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order due to lack of opportunity and the assessee's age and technical limitations. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was due to a potential change in the assessee's email address leading to non-receipt of notices.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 263 initiated and completed in the name of the amalgamating company (Lands End Properties Pvt. Ltd.) were invalid in law. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not respond to notices from the CIT(A), there was a dispute regarding the email address used for communication. In the interest of justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) only applies to the computation of business income and does not bar deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80G. The PCIT's order was found untenable as there was no legislative intent to disallow Section 80G deductions for CSR contributions, except for specific funds.
The Tribunal held that mobilization advance, being in the nature of a capital receipt or loan, should not be denied TDS credit even if not offered to tax in the current year. The credit for TDS should be allowed in the year of deduction.