Loading ITAT cases…
734 orders · Page 13 of 15
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The orders passed by the CIT(E) were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeals related to previously cancelled orders were deemed infructuous but would be decided afresh.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating profit at 15% without supporting material and considering the specific nature of the assessee's projects. Regarding accommodation loans in unabated assessment years, the Tribunal ruled that additions require incriminating material found in the assessee's hands during the search.
The Tribunal observed that certain factual aspects were not properly presented by the assessee before the tax authorities. Considering the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case properly.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of 15% profit on on-money receipts was not justified due to lack of material and the specific nature of the assessee's projects. For unabated assessment years, additions for accommodation loans were deleted due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the search warrant was issued in the name of a deceased person, rendering the search and subsequent proceedings under Section 153A illegal and void ab initio. Therefore, the entire action based on this illegal search falls through.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating profit at 15% on alleged on-money receipts without sufficient material and considering the specific facts of the case. For unabated assessment years, additions on account of accommodation loans require incriminating material found during the search in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong section code and had not been given an opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate on 'on-money' receipts from 15% to 9%, considering the assessee's business profile and declared profit rates. For accommodation loans, the Tribunal noted the appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2017-18 fall under unabated assessment years, implying further proceedings.
The Tribunal held that corporate office expenses and depreciation should not be allocated to the Goa and Kanjikode undertakings for Section 80IB deduction. It also ruled that finance costs and miscellaneous expenses were wrongly allocated by the AO and CIT(A). The inclusion of sales tax, CST, and marketing cess in total turnover for Section 80HHC deduction was also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that WhatsApp chats found from a third party's mobile, without corroborative evidence from the assessee's possession or other inquiries, lack evidentiary value. The AO should have proceeded under Section 153C if relying on documents seized from another person pertaining to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the revision orders under Section 263, which were challenged by the assessee, had been quashed by a coordinate bench. Consequently, the assessment orders and the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders derived from them could not survive.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had misconstrued the nature of the expenses. The assessee argued that the expenses were reimbursements to sports persons for activities conducted outside India, and the actual payments for bookings were made within India. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh review.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had misconstrued the nature of the expenses. The assessee argued that the expenses were reimbursements to sports persons for activities conducted outside India, and the actual payments for bookings were made within India. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh review.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings were justifiable, particularly as the Revenue failed to provide any material to contradict the CIT(A)'s order or demonstrate perversity. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts regarding labour charges.
The Tribunal held that while Section 50(1) deems the excess consideration over the written-down value and expenses as capital gains from the transfer of short-term capital assets, this fiction is confined only to Section 50. It cannot convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset for other purposes of the Act, including the rate of tax. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, including the one in CIT vs. Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd., which was approved by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd. These precedents establish that the 20% tax rate under Section 112, applicable to LTCG, should be applied to gains arising from the transfer of depreciable assets under Section 50, even though they are deemed to be STCG for computation purposes. Therefore, the rate of tax applicable would be 20% plus surcharge, as per Section 112. The appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the revision orders under Section 263, which were challenged by the assessee, had been quashed by a coordinate bench. Consequently, the assessment orders and the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders derived from them could not survive.
The Tribunal held that corporate office expenses and depreciation should not be allocated to the Goa and Kanjikode undertakings for Section 80IB deduction. It also ruled that finance costs and miscellaneous expenses were wrongly allocated by the AO and CIT(A). The inclusion of sales tax, CST, and marketing cess in total turnover for Section 80HHC deduction was also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal addressed several issues. Regarding corporate office expenses and depreciation (Assessee's Ground 1), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allocate these expenses, dismissing the assessee's alternative contention for incremental allocation. For finance cost, miscellaneous expenses, and R&D expenses (Assessee's Ground 2), the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, and followed a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case for AY 1999-2000 regarding packing material costs. On the issue of interest income for Section 80HHC (Assessee's Ground 3), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce 90% of gross interest, finding that the assessee failed to prove the nexus between interest expenditure and income. For the provision for advertisement and sales promotion expenses under Section 115JA (Assessee's Ground 4), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, agreeing that it was not an unascertained liability. For the revenue's grounds concerning miscellaneous expenses and shortage/leakage expenses (Revenue's Grounds 1, 2, 3), the Tribunal dismissed these grounds, following coordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case. Regarding packing material cost (Revenue's Ground 4), the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to allow allocation based on actual consumption, following a coordinate bench. For the inclusion of indirect taxes in turnover for Section 80HHC (Revenue's Ground 5), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sudarshan Chemicals Ltd. and a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, except for one which was dismissed. The operative direction was to allow the assessee's appeals and dismiss the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the issues to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of agricultural income and savings, noting the assessee's age and status. While the CIT(A) sustained 50% of the addition, the Tribunal reduced it further to 25% of the total deposits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submission regarding the non-receipt of the assessment order and dismissed the appeal summarily on limitation without proper adjudication. The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity at both assessment and appellate stages.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order u/s 263 was quashed, the consequent assessment order could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing relief to the assessee was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order u/s 263 was quashed, the consequent assessment order could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing relief to the assessee was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, stating it cannot exceed the exempt income earned and is not applicable for book profit under Section 115JB. The addition under Section 69A was also deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence and retraction of the primary statement.
The Tribunal held that corporate office expenses and depreciation should not be allocated to the Goa and Kanjikode undertakings for Section 80IB deduction. It also ruled that finance costs and miscellaneous expenses were wrongly allocated by the AO and CIT(A). The inclusion of sales tax, CST, and marketing cess in total turnover for Section 80HHC deduction was also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of 15% profit on on-money receipts was not justified due to lack of material and the specific nature of the assessee's projects. For unabated assessment years, additions for accommodation loans were deleted due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating profit at 15% on alleged on-money receipts, considering the nature of the projects and the assessee's declared profit margins. For unabated assessment years, additions for accommodation loans require incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that a daughter-in-law falls within the definition of 'relative' as per the Explanation (e) to Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because she is the spouse of the assessee's lineal descendant (son). Therefore, the gift received from her is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that Section 167B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, explicitly excludes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The assessee herein is a society registered under the said Act, as evidenced by the certificate of registration. Therefore, the provisions of Section 167B are not applicable to the assessee. Consequently, the tax authorities were not justified in levying tax at the maximum marginal rate. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's submission that the tax demanded by the AO for this year has already been deleted by appellate authorities. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and quashed the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act. The issue of exemption u/s 11, while mentioned as having been allowed by appellate authorities, was not the primary focus of the Tribunal's decision regarding the applicability of Section 167B.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions, documents, and previous ITAT orders. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. The decision on book profit under Section 115JB followed the Special Bench ruling in Vireet Investments.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. The decision on book profit under Section 115JB followed the Special Bench ruling in Vireet Investments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the AO an opportunity to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, including loan sanction letters and bank statements, to substantiate the source of funds for the property purchases, and these were available to the AO.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. The decision on book profit under Section 115JB followed the Special Bench ruling in Vireet Investments.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. The decision on book profit under Section 115JB followed the Special Bench ruling in Vireet Investments.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases in the reassessment was unsustainable, as it amounted to a change of opinion without new information. The addition was restricted to 8% GP for purchases from Mayur Exports, consistent with the original assessment and prior ITAT ruling.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned from investment in co-operative banks by a co-operative society is an allowable deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments which established that a co-operative bank is considered a co-operative society for the purpose of Section 80P and Section 80P(4) is not applicable in such cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for share application money, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for trade payables, holding that Section 68 is not applicable to purchases made on credit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) ought to have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to be decided afresh.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating profit at 15% on alleged on-money receipts without supporting material, considering the specific facts of the case. It also addressed the issue of additions for accommodation loans in unabated assessment years based on incriminating material found during search.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide sufficient material to justify estimating profit at 15% on alleged on-money receipts, considering the specific nature of the assessee's projects and location. Regarding accommodation loans, the Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 153A for unabated assessment years based on incriminating material.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide sufficient material or comparable cases to justify estimating profit at 15% on alleged 'on-money' receipts, especially considering the specific nature of the assessee's projects and location. Regarding accommodation loans, the Tribunal noted the assessee's reliance on the Abhisar Buildwell case, which emphasizes the need for incriminating material found during the search for unabated assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not justified in estimating profit at 15% on alleged on-money receipts without supporting material, considering the specific facts of the case. The Tribunal also found that additions for accommodation loans in an unabated assessment year were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in estimating profit at 15% on alleged on-money receipts without supporting material, considering the specific facts of the case. Regarding accommodation loans in unabated assessment years, the Tribunal noted the assessee's reliance on the Abhisar Buildwell case, which requires incriminating material found during search in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient material to justify estimating profit at 15% on alleged on-money receipts, considering the specific nature of the assessee's projects and location. The Tribunal also addressed the validity of reopening assessments based on incriminating material found during a search.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide sufficient justification for estimating profit at 15% on alleged 'on-money' receipts, considering the specific facts of the case. Regarding accommodation loans, the Tribunal considered the implications of incriminating material found during search for unabated assessment years.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide sufficient justification for estimating profit at 15% on alleged 'on-money' receipts, failing to consider the specific facts of the case. Regarding accommodation loans, the Tribunal noted that for unabated assessment years, additions require incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned from investment in co-operative banks by a co-operative society is an allowable deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments which established that a co-operative bank is considered a co-operative society for the purpose of Section 80P and Section 80P(4) is not applicable in such cases.