Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on Fixed Deposits with Nationalized banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Therefore, the Principal CIT's order directing the AO to tax the full amount of interest was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that companies with significantly higher turnovers than the assessee cannot be considered comparable in transfer pricing analysis. Consequently, the exclusion of certain high-turnover companies by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law because a fresh notice under Section 143(2) was not issued after the assessee filed the return in response to the Section 148 notice.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of commission disallowance, stating the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without proper verification. The subsidy was held to be a capital receipt and not reducible from the cost of assets.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to pro-rata deduction for the completed units of the approved housing project, as the application for completion certificate was filed within the stipulated time. However, no deduction was allowed for the additional unapproved floors.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as there was no new tangible material and the AO had merely changed his opinion. The Tribunal also noted that the jurisdictional High Court had held such receipts to be assessable as 'Income from House Property'.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of commission disallowance, stating the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without proper verification. The subsidy was held to be a capital receipt and not reducible from the cost of assets.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of commission disallowance, stating the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without proper verification. It held the subsidy received to encourage industrial development was a capital receipt.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding suppressed production, agreeing with the CIT(A) that additions cannot be made solely on electricity consumption formula without corroborative evidence. For bogus purchases, the Tribunal upheld an addition of 10% of the purchases, following a coordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to pro-rata deduction for the units completed within the stipulated time as per the approved plan. However, no deduction was allowed for additional floors constructed without approval.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to pro-rata deduction for the completed units of the approved housing project, as the application for completion certificate was filed within the stipulated time. However, no deduction was allowed for the additional unapproved floors.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of reconciliation of cash balance, unproved creditors, and deemed dividend. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and evidence, and the Revenue failed to controvert the findings of the CIT(A).