Loading ITAT cases…
298 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and facts by making additions based solely on police computations without independent application of mind. The additions were deleted as they were not made in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deductions under Section 36(1)(viia) as the provisions made by the assessee were within the prescribed limits and supported by case law. Similarly, the bonus disallowances were deleted, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not strike out the irrelevant limb of Section 271(1)(c), thereby vitiating the penalty order. Consequently, the enhancement of penalty by the CIT(A) was also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deductions under Section 36(1)(viia) as the provisions made by the assessee were within the prescribed limits and supported by case law. Similarly, the bonus disallowances were deleted, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning Maveric System Ltd. and other comparables, finding them to be profit-making and meeting export filters. However, it allowed the Revenue's appeal to exclude India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. as a comparable due to its nature as a government company.
The Tribunal held that interest received on delayed payment of compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income tax. The amendments brought about by the Finance Act, 2009, specifically Section 56(2)(viii), make such interest taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were unsustainable as they did not specify the relevant provision for TDS deduction. Consequently, the reassessments were quashed as non est.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the eligibility for deduction under section 54F. The assessee was directed to file the registered purchase deed and other necessary evidence before the AO.
The Tribunal held that a provision for obsolete stock is allowable as a deduction, provided the valuation is done based on the principle of cost or market price or net realizable value, whichever is less. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that lease rentals can be booked based on reasonable certainty and estimation, referencing previous orders and case law. It deleted the disallowance of lease rent expenses and estimated other related expenses at 5%.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and facts by making additions based solely on police computations without independent application of mind. The additions were deleted as they were not made in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the 'religious expenses' were for the greater good of society and not for a specific religion, and the actual religious expenditure was within the prescribed limit. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for recognition.
The Tribunal held that the share capital addition was a protective measure and should be deleted. It partly upheld the Section 40A(3) disallowance for certain payments while deleting others, and remanded the issue of depreciation for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal, following its own order for a similar issue in the preceding assessment year, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is permitted to submit supporting evidence for its agricultural income claim.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue failed due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted necessary enquiries into the cost of production and had made an ad-hoc disallowance. Since the assessee also failed to appear before the PCIT, the revision order setting aside the assessment for de-novo assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received under the Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentive 2007 was a capital receipt. This was based on the purpose of the subsidy, which was to encourage industrial development and employment generation in less developed areas.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding Section 194I addition had attained finality in the previous round and could not be reopened. The assessee's contention regarding the retrospective applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was also dismissed as the matter was already decided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions for Section 54F exemption as the funds were not utilized for purchasing a new residential house within the stipulated period. However, a portion of the cost of improvement for land leveling was allowed.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be perfunctory and lacking proper discussion of facts and legal precedents. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not justified. The AO had made due inquiries and accepted one of the possible legal stands, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order to be perfunctory and lacking proper discussion of facts and legal precedents. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IB(10). It found that the assessee failed to prove the land area exceeded 1 acre, as evidenced by the Departmental Valuer's report and actual measurements.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not justified. The AO had made due inquiries and accepted one of the possible legal stands, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issues of excess sugarcane price and concessional sale of sugar were not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities in light of Supreme Court directions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as it was based solely on the statement of one individual without corroborating documentary evidence. The inability to produce witnesses to the alleged cash payment further weakened the Revenue's case.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on securities held till maturity, confirmed disallowance on provision for bad debts, and directed verification for set-off of brought forward losses. The appeal regarding bad debts written off was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat the disallowance of bogus purchases as eligible for Section 80IA deduction, following CBDT Circular No. 37/2016. This was based on the assessee being held entitled to Section 80IA(4) deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been able to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash loans before the lower authorities. However, the assessee presented additional evidence that was not considered by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of software payments, following its earlier decision that such purchases are not royalty. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was remanded for fresh factual verification. The appeal regarding Section 10AA deduction was also decided in favour of the assessee based on prior tribunal orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to entertain claims not made in the original or revised return of income. The claim was also barred by the provisions of Section 80AC read with the fourth proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on securities held till maturity, confirmed disallowance on provision for bad debts, and directed verification for set-off of brought forward losses. The appeal regarding bad debts written off was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent that genuine business transactions do not exempt payments made in violation of Section 40A(3). The Tribunal also found that Rule 6DD(k) was not attracted as the payments were made on a principal-to-principal basis, not to an agent.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on securities held till maturity, confirmed disallowance on provision for bad debts, and directed verification for set-off of brought forward losses. The appeal regarding bad debts written off was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that there was no concrete evidence to prove the assessee's involvement in the misappropriation of rice. The acquittal of the assessee in a criminal case for the same allegations further supported this.
The Tribunal held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation, following its own previous order in the assessee's case. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that interest received on loans to AEs was at arm's length if it exceeded LIBOR + 2%. It also ruled that R&D expenditure should be allocated when computing profits for Section 80IC deduction, and that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, finding that the payments were not in the nature of commercial transactions. For the assessment year 2014-15, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to re-adjudicate a set-off claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed written submissions on the date fixed for hearing, seeking an adjournment due to short notice. It was found that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider this material and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50.00 lakh, and this limit was applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not entertained.
The Tribunal held that the entire sale consideration was received by the assessee in May 2011, and possession was handed over in AY 2012-13. Therefore, no capital gain arose in AY 2011-12.
The CIT(A) held that since no expenditure was actually incurred, no liability arose for the assessee to deduct tax. The tribunal upheld this finding, relying on a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the purchases made for claiming deduction under Section 54B were within the stipulated period of two years from the sale of the original land. Regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the car hiring business by restricting the disallowance to Rs. 2,00,000/-, modifying the CIT(A)'s order. For the agricultural income, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication with liberty to the assessee to file evidence.
The Tribunal held that the remuneration paid to partners was in accordance with the partnership deed and the provisions of Section 40(b)(v) of the Income Tax Act. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for payments made to sub-contractors, and the AO's rejection of these evidences as self-made vouchers was untenable.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the AO's calculation of total income after allowing set-off of unabsorbed depreciation. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14 due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing exemption, following its own precedents in the assessee's own case for earlier years.