Loading ITAT cases…
142 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12, finding that the issue of cash found was covered by a Settlement Commission order which explained the cash as per books of accounts. However, for AYs 2005-06 to 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence like cash-flow statements to support telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12, finding that the issue of cash found was covered by a Settlement Commission order which explained the cash as per books of accounts. However, for AYs 2005-06 to 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence like cash-flow statements to support telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12, finding that the issue of cash found was covered by a Settlement Commission order which explained the cash as per books of accounts. However, for AYs 2005-06 to 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence like cash-flow statements to support telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2011-12, finding that the issue of cash found was covered by a Settlement Commission order which explained the cash as per books of accounts. However, for AYs 2005-06 to 2009-10, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence like cash-flow statements to support telescoping benefits.
The Tribunal held that receipts from members' guests fall under the principle of mutuality and are not taxable. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the taxability of interest income was confirmed, but a deduction of 7.5% of interest earned was allowed as expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the conversion of loans into share application money and subsequent allotment of shares does not amount to a repayment of loan under Section 269T. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271E was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for transfer pricing adjustments was to be accepted. It also allowed the claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) and directed the AO to dispose of the rectification application regarding TDS.
The Tribunal held that provisions for warranty and after-sales costs, when estimated on a scientific basis, are allowable deductions. They noted that this issue had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. However, it allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had decided not to pursue it.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for transfer pricing adjustments was to be accepted. It also allowed the claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) and directed the AO to dispose of the rectification application regarding TDS.
The Tribunal held that the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for transfer pricing adjustments was to be accepted. It also allowed the claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) and directed the AO to dispose of the rectification application regarding TDS.
The Tribunal held that the aggregation approach adopted by the assessee for transfer pricing adjustments was to be accepted. It also allowed the claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) and directed the AO to dispose of the rectification application regarding TDS.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that since the provision for bad and doubtful debts made prior to assessment year 2007-08 was not allowed as a deduction due to the income being exempt under Section 80P, the write-back of such provisions is not taxable. However, for limited verification of the period of the write-off, the matter was set aside to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the division of a plot due to reservations does not disqualify it for Section 80IB(10) deduction if the original plot was of sufficient size. It also ruled that a clubhouse construction, even without a formal completion certificate, is eligible for pro-rata deduction if applied for within time.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015, cooperative banks were not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to their members. This decision was based on the Bombay High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) was not fulfilled, both while initiating penalty proceedings and while passing the penalty order. Such an order is considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) was not fulfilled, both while initiating penalty proceedings and while passing the penalty order. Such an order is considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) was not fulfilled, both while initiating penalty proceedings and while passing the penalty order. Such an order is considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) was not fulfilled, both while initiating penalty proceedings and while passing the penalty order. Such an order is considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) was not fulfilled, both while initiating penalty proceedings and while passing the penalty order. Such an order is considered null and void.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) was not fulfilled, both while initiating penalty proceedings and while passing the penalty order. Such an order is considered null and void.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the division of a plot due to reservations does not disqualify it for Section 80IB(10) deduction if the original plot was of sufficient size. It also ruled that a clubhouse construction, even without a formal completion certificate, is eligible for pro-rata deduction if applied for within time.
The Tribunal held that the division of a plot due to reservations does not disqualify it for Section 80IB(10) deduction if the original plot was of sufficient size. It also ruled that a clubhouse construction, even without a formal completion certificate, is eligible for pro-rata deduction if applied for within time.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The deletion of penalty was upheld as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and the issue on merits had been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of the Volcker Committee Report, especially when the payments were made through banking channels for services rendered and commercial expediency. The Tribunal found the levy of penalty unsustainable due to the debatable nature of both facts and law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowance of director's remuneration was ad-hoc and lacked proper justification, and similarly, the ad-hoc disallowance of other expenses was not supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale of scrap was not sustainable. It also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on a bungalow occupied by the MD, considering it as a business asset.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on fixed deposits with nationalized/scheduled banks constitutes business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on repairs and renovations was revenue in nature, similar to previous assessment years. They noted that no new asset was created and the expenditure was necessary for business expediency.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that interest on NPAs is not taxable in the hands of the assessee. This was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that RBI guidelines on prudential norms override income recognition principles for cooperative banks.
The Tribunal held that risk inspection charges are necessary for an insurance company to assess and mitigate future losses. Relying on its own previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the claim in full.
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of the Volcker Committee Report, especially when the payments were made through banking channels for services rendered and commercial expediency. The Tribunal found the levy of penalty unsustainable due to the debatable nature of both facts and law.
The Tribunal held that risk inspection charges are necessary for an insurance company to assess and mitigate future losses. Relying on its own previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the claim in full.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by not properly examining all land transactions and the retracted declaration. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale of scrap was not sustainable. It also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on a bungalow occupied by the MD, considering it as a business asset.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale of scrap was not sustainable. It also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on a bungalow occupied by the MD, considering it as a business asset.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale of scrap was not sustainable. It also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on a bungalow occupied by the MD, considering it as a business asset.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of sale of scrap was not sustainable. It also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on a bungalow occupied by the MD, considering it as a business asset.