Loading ITAT cases…
145 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A in a non-abated assessment under Section 153C is not sustainable without incriminating material. Other grounds related to gratuity scheme contributions were dismissed, while disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on intangible assets as it was part of the block of assets and had been allowed in prior years. However, the premium paid on redemption of preference shares was held to be capital in nature and not deductible.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A in a non-abated assessment under Section 153C is not sustainable without incriminating material. Other grounds related to gratuity scheme contributions were dismissed, while disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees was allowed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A in a non-abated assessment under Section 153C is not sustainable without incriminating material. Other grounds related to gratuity scheme contributions were dismissed, while disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowing interest on NPAs had been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous assessment year. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding depreciation and professional fees. It allowed the Revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of penalty for unrealized gains, upholding the AO's levy. The Tribunal also dismissed one of the Revenue's appeals related to A.Y. 1998-99.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding disallowance of remuneration to partners and interest paid on gold deposit scheme, following its own prior decisions. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction by issuing a fresh notice under Section 148 and passing a subsequent assessment order after the first order under Section 254 r.w.s. 147 had already been passed without assessing any income. The second order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee failed to comply with the notice requirements. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that while the purchases might not be entirely bogus, there were gaps in the trail of goods, and directed a partial addition.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing e-TDS returns due to unfamiliarity with the new e-filing system, especially when the system was complex and undergoing amendments, constitutes a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(k) is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A in a non-abated assessment under Section 153C is not sustainable without incriminating material. Other grounds related to gratuity scheme contributions were dismissed, while disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees was allowed.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in a prior assessment year, allowed the commission payment as a deductible business expense. Consequently, the penalty levied for the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in a prior assessment year, allowed the commission payment as a deductible business expense. Consequently, the penalty levied for the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for completed units in Project A, following its own previous orders. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify completion dates and compute the deduction accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the itemized additions and by estimating profits without proper justification, ignoring the provisions of the Act and the evidence gathered during the survey. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking adjudication.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider relevant Supreme Court and other High Court judgments. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the existing case laws cited by the Revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding depreciation and professional fees. It allowed the Revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of penalty for unrealized gains, upholding the AO's levy. The Tribunal also dismissed one of the Revenue's appeals related to A.Y. 1998-99.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding disallowance of remuneration to partners and interest paid on gold deposit scheme, following its own prior decisions. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assignment of work to members of the JV was not a sub-contract, and therefore, the JV was not liable to deduct TDS. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 273B allows for deletion of penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) if a reasonable cause for the delay is shown. The assessee's reason for delay in compiling information was accepted as a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding depreciation and professional fees. It allowed the Revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of penalty for unrealized gains, upholding the AO's levy. The Tribunal also dismissed one of the Revenue's appeals related to A.Y. 1998-99.
The Tribunal held that the 20.52% profit rate was excessive and directed the AO to estimate profits at 12.5%. Regarding the initial investment, the issue was allowed for statistical purposes to allow the assessee to furnish evidence of agricultural income.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding depreciation and professional fees. It allowed the Revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of penalty for unrealized gains, upholding the AO's levy. The Tribunal also dismissed one of the Revenue's appeals related to A.Y. 1998-99.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee failed to comply with the notice requirements. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal found that while the purchases might not be entirely bogus, there were gaps in the trail of goods, and directed a partial addition.
The Tribunal found a prima facie case of double taxation of the additional income, both in the hands of the assessee and its partner. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination to verify the claim of double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order suffered from infirmity because the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction on one of the limbs of Section 271(1)(c) and the penalty was levied without a clear finding on which limb was not fulfilled. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the assessment order and penalty computation.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in a prior assessment year, allowed the commission payment as a deductible business expense. Consequently, the penalty levied for the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years without a finding of failure by the assessee to disclose material facts is invalid. The Assessing Officer had already applied his mind to the labour charges in the initial assessment. Therefore, the reopening was in violation of Section 147.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction by issuing a fresh notice under Section 148 and passing a subsequent assessment order after the first order under Section 254 r.w.s. 147 had already been passed without assessing any income. The second order was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the itemized additions and by estimating profits without proper justification, ignoring the provisions of the Act and the evidence gathered during the survey. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in a prior assessment year, allowed the commission payment as a deductible business expense. Consequently, the penalty levied for the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the 20.52% profit rate was excessive and directed the AO to estimate profits at 12.5%. Regarding the initial investment, the issue was allowed for statistical purposes to allow the assessee to furnish evidence of agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that since the dividend income of Rs. 7,500/- was offered to tax, no exempt income was received. Therefore, disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Limited.
The Tribunal held that the AO recorded satisfaction for concealment of income in the assessment order but levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, the Tribunal found that the penalty order suffered from non-exercise of jurisdiction due to lack of proper show cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the creditworthiness of the parties who provided the advances. The landholdings and earnings of these parties were found insufficient to justify the advance amounts.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was not argued by the assessee and thus dismissed. Regarding the addition on purchases, the Tribunal applied a 10% GP rate on the goods purchased over and above the GP rate declared by the assessee, following a previous ruling.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case did not fall under the exceptions to Section 40A(3) as banking facilities were available and the assessee failed to prove business expediency for cash payments. However, penalty orders were set aside due to a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the true translation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was crucial to determine if the loan was for property development (business) or purchase (capital asset). The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the credit card payments were made by the two companies on behalf of the assessee and supported by evidence, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A in a non-abated assessment under Section 153C is not sustainable without incriminating material. Other grounds related to gratuity scheme contributions were dismissed, while disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assignment of work to members of the JV was not a sub-contract, and therefore, the JV was not liable to deduct TDS. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal as the assessee did not appear. The core issue was whether Section 50C applies to leasehold rights in land or building, with the Revenue arguing it does based on Section 269UA(d)(i).
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,42,312/- as the assessee failed to establish the source of funds from agricultural income. The disallowance of agricultural income was also upheld due to the failure to furnish sale patties.