Loading ITAT cases…
409 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that filing the audit report before the completion of assessment proceedings is sufficient compliance, and the generation of surplus does not automatically imply improper utilization of funds. It also clarified that Section 12AA registration is not a prerequisite for exemption under Section 10(23C)(v).
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained expenditure was not justified as it was solely based on a third party's statement and a loose document without corroborative evidence. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was also deleted as the CIT(A) had considered valid exceptions and the Revenue failed to provide rebutting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the amendment inserting Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 200A, which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not justified.
The Tribunal held that if the professional fees were included in the firm's income on a gross basis, then taxing the TDS amount in the hands of the assessee would lead to double taxation. The matter was remitted to the AO to verify this.
The Tribunal decided that the issues of excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rates were to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following Supreme Court judgments. The VSI contribution issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that if the application for a completion certificate is moved before the due date and the delay in issuance is not attributable to the assessee, the project should be deemed complete as of the application date. The High Court's decision in Hindustan Samuh Awas Limited was found applicable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was not sustainable as interest-free funds were sufficient to cover advances to sister concerns. Similarly, the deduction under Section 80-IA was allowed based on previous ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to leasehold rights. It also found that the seized document, which indicated cash paid to society members, rebutted the presumption of correctness as members are separately assessable.
The Tribunal held that if the capital asset is acquired by way of gift, the cost of acquisition shall be the cost for which the previous owner acquired it. Since the lower authorities could not ascertain the actual cost of acquisition paid by way of valuable consideration by the previous owner, the cost of acquisition was to be taken as 'NIL'.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act is restricted only to the amount received from the prohibited person (Rs. 65,00,000/-). The assessee's appeal on this specific ground was allowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's stand based on settled legal position. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance after verifying the interest-free and interest-bearing funds against investments.
The Tribunal held that the payment to Shri Ramesh Shinde was not deductible as the power of attorney lacked consideration and there was no documentary evidence of the assessee's right to claim it. The payment to the society was also disallowed as it did not meet the criteria of cost of acquisition or improvement.
The tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all correspondent details of the survey numbers sold with the cost of acquisition within three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on payments to overseas entities if the services did not 'make available' technical knowledge in India, as per DTAA provisions. Disallowances related to salaries and other expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the balance consideration to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication due to new evidence regarding a cancellation deed. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim regarding the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, holding that the amended provisions regarding fair market value were prospective.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding agency commission, stating that the assessee had succeeded on the same issue in preceding years and the expenditure was not necessarily incurred. For sales promotion, the disallowance was restricted to 8%. For Section 14A, direct expenses were confirmed, but administrative expenses were restored for fresh computation.
The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decision, stating that the responsibility for salary payment lies with the economic employer who exercises control over the employee's work. The assessee's role was merely to distribute payments, not to bear the cost of incremental salaries.
The Tribunal, following the precedent set by a co-ordinate bench and Supreme Court judgments, remitted the issues of excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rates back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The issue of C-class membership was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to reframe the assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that if the capital asset is acquired by way of gift, the cost of acquisition shall be the cost for which the previous owner acquired it. Since the lower authorities could not ascertain the actual cost of acquisition paid by way of valuable consideration by the previous owner, the cost of acquisition was to be taken as 'NIL'.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on payments to overseas entities if the services did not 'make available' technical knowledge in India, as per DTAA provisions. Disallowances related to salaries and other expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of interest as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover advances to sister concerns, following the precedent set in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Section 80-IA deduction disallowance, following its own prior orders.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to leasehold rights. It also found that the seized document, which indicated cash paid to society members, rebutted the presumption of correctness as members are separately assessable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of not condoning the delay without considering the merits was incorrect, following jurisdictional High Court rulings. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not maintainable as the related income was voluntarily offered to tax by the flagship company of the group before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on a report that excluded other group companies to be without substance.
The tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which allows for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Therefore, the levy is only applicable for defaults committed after this date.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to one previously decided by a co-ordinate bench. Following that precedent, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not maintainable as the related income was voluntarily offered to tax by the flagship company of the group before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on a report that excluded other group companies to be without substance.
The Tribunal held that PRI line charges do not qualify as fees for technical services and are not subject to TDS under Section 40(a)(ia). Issues not pressed were dismissed.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case, holding that PRI line charges were not fees for technical services and thus not subject to TDS disallowance. Issues not pressed were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that PRI line charges do not qualify as fees for technical services and are not subject to TDS under Section 40(a)(ia). Issues not pressed were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that PRI line charges do not qualify as fees for technical services and are not subject to TDS under Section 40(a)(ia). Issues not pressed were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench, which followed a Supreme Court judgment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was decided by a Co-ordinate Bench, which followed a Supreme Court judgment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A), the penalty appeal should also be restored to the CIT(A) for decision in conformity with the outcome of the quantum proceedings. This decision was supported by Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to determine the profit component in the excess cane price paid, which would be appropriation of profit and not deductible, while the rest is deductible expenditure.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue was decided by a co-ordinate bench, which followed a Supreme Court judgment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on the Supreme Court's directions.
The Tribunal held that merely making an addition to income does not automatically imply furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Assessing Officer did not provide findings on what specific particulars were found to be false.
The assessee had opted for the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 5. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not maintainable as the related income was voluntarily offered to tax by the flagship company of the group before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on a report that excluded other group companies to be without substance.
The Tribunal held that the sale was conditional and the assessee was entitled to payment only upon fulfillment of specific stages. Since the conditions were not met and no full consideration was received, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.