Loading ITAT cases…
522 orders · Page 11 of 11
The tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made under section 50C based on a deeming fiction, citing the case of CIT vs. Madan Teatres Ltd. However, the penalty for the negative cash balance was rightly levied as the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis. This view is supported by various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis. This view is supported by various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal noted that while the purchase and sale of shares were evidenced through bank statements and demat accounts, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the date of allotment/purchase of shares. This prevented the determination of whether the gains were long-term or short-term.
The Tribunal noted that while the purchase and sale of shares were evidenced through bank statements and demat accounts, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the date of allotment/purchase of shares. This prevented the determination of whether the gains were long-term or short-term.
The Tribunal noted that while the purchase and sale of shares were evidenced through bank statements and demat accounts, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the date of allotment/purchase of shares. This prevented the determination of whether the gains were long-term or short-term.
The Tribunal held that the fertilizer subsidy received under the NBS policy is a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. This decision aligns with previous rulings by the ITAT in the assessee's own case and other judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available (Rs. 6.36 crores) which were more than the interest-free advances given (Rs. 5.82 crores). Therefore, no addition on account of notional interest was called for, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the Percentage of Completion Method was correctly followed and accepted by the department in previous years. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessee consistently applied this method and that similar computations were accepted in earlier and subsequent years after scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that Section 50 of the Act applies to depreciable assets, and the fact that depreciation was claimed in earlier years is sufficient for it to be treated as a depreciable asset. The subsequent rental of the property does not change its character for the purpose of Section 50.
The Tribunal observed that the ex-parte order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and had not provided sufficient opportunity for being heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the Chartered Accountant's personal difficulties, constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 43CA(3) of the Act, if the date of agreement and registration are different, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement should be considered. Since the agreement for sale was executed on 30/04/2011, the stamp duty value on that date should be used for computing profits and gains.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, when made as a donation to eligible charitable organizations, should not be denied deduction under Section 80G merely because it is categorized as CSR expenditure. The specific prohibition under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act applies to business expenditure, not to deductions under Section 80G. The choice to make donations remains with the company and is voluntary in nature.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposits. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain the sources of these deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the remand report from the AO, which had examined the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) to consider the remand report and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the addition made were unsustainable. The Assessing Officer had proceeded on an incorrect understanding of facts, assuming capital gains instead of business loss, and had not conducted proper inquiry.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). It also set aside the addition made for income from house property to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). It also set aside the addition made for income from house property to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were validly initiated based on information received from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus purchases. However, regarding the merits of the addition, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, referencing a previous Tribunal order that had set aside a revision order. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to the difference between the gross profit margins of genuine and alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). It also set aside the addition made for income from house property to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.