Loading ITAT cases…
667 orders · Page 14 of 14
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets acquired from corpus donations, even if the purchase cost was treated as application of income. The amendment to Section 11(6) of the Act was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for income from CFS. It followed the consistent view of the Coordinate Bench and High Court decisions, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect on the disputed issues was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's father was unwell, causing non-compliance. Considering this, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the appellant before the CITA and remitted the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the Civil Court's decision was a subsequent event not available to the lower authorities. Considering this and similar cases of co-owners being restored, the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI due to a one-day delay, when the due date falls on a Sunday or public holiday, is incorrect. The delay is condoned under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, and the disallowance is deleted.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 94(7) regarding dividend stripping were not applicable as the units were purchased more than three months prior to the dividend record date. The Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee actively participating in manipulation and thus deleted the addition.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT registry had registered the same appeal twice, leading to two separate orders for the same assessment year. The Tribunal decided to recall the order passed in ITA No. 4846/Mum/2023 and dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for unexplained investment in RIL shares, finding that the assessee had sufficient opening stock. It also directed the deletion of an addition based on Harshad Mehta's disclosure statement, following precedent, and ordered the AO to compute interest under Section 234B after deducting TDS.
The Tribunal acknowledged that there was a reasonable cause preventing the assessee from effective representation before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that all grounds raised by the Revenue were covered by its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case. These earlier decisions, following Supreme Court judgments, had ruled in favour of the assessee regarding the calculation of taxable surplus and the treatment of shareholder's account surplus and negative reserves.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that interest on loans for a let-out property is allowable if rental income is shown. It also held that the difference between stamp duty value and agreement value is not taxable if it is within the 10% tolerance band, applying amendments retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) should be allowed, considering the stamp duty value on the date of allotment. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that an effective opportunity of hearing is essential and that the CIT(A) order suffered from illegality as there was no proof of proper service of notices. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.