Loading ITAT cases…
285 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly verified the conditions for Section 54B exemption and the nature of the bank account. Therefore, the CIT's order setting aside the assessment for fresh verification was justified.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot be considered an aggrieved party when its Assessing Officer submits a favorable remand report. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals and the revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals and the revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee admitted to making cash repayments exceeding Rs. 20,000, which is a violation of Section 269T. The assessee failed to prove any exceptional circumstances or reasonable cause for such repayments, thus upholding the penalty.
The tribunal held that the issues concerning Section 10AA deduction and Section 40(a)(i) disallowance were covered by previous judicial precedents. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the development agreement executed in 2004, which involved transfer of land and possession to the developer with the same sale consideration as the later sale deed, constituted a transfer in AY 2004-05. Therefore, the capital gains should be taxed in that year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee admitted to making cash repayments exceeding Rs. 20,000, which is a violation of Section 269T. The assessee failed to prove any exceptional circumstances or reasonable cause for such repayments, thus upholding the penalty.
The tribunal held that the issues concerning Section 10AA deduction and Section 40(a)(i) disallowance were covered by previous judicial precedents. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application. A portion of the donation was permitted by the Joint Charity Commissioner for temple construction, and the assessee was carrying out other charitable activities. The Tribunal also noted that expenditure on religious activities not exceeding 5% of total income is permissible under Section 80G(5B).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of opportunity. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-scheduled bank, is eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). It also directed the AO to verify the interest income issue and decide accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's non-compliance was deliberate and without sufficient reason, as no evidence was provided to support the claim of the AO being on leave. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because another appeal concerning the same issue was pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee was not prejudiced as all issues could be raised in the pending appeal.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from cooperative banks was a plausible one. The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to set aside this order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the expenditure was incurred in connection with the sale. It was considered an application of income, not a deductible expense.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 54F for the amount invested in the new property before filing the return of income. It also held that the HUF is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54B for the agricultural land purchased, even if registered in an individual's name, as the HUF utilized its funds and enjoyed the benefits.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) allow accumulation of income for future application only if there is an unspent amount. In the absence of any unspent income, the question of accumulation does not arise, and 15% of gross receipts cannot be allowed as a standard deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the deduction under Section 54B to the extent the agricultural lands were purchased through registered agreements. However, the appeal was dismissed as the assessee did not appear.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) allow accumulation of income for future application only if there is an unspent amount. In the absence of any unspent income, the question of accumulation does not arise, and 15% of gross receipts cannot be allowed as a standard deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the income disclosed during the survey was offered to tax in the earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found that the claim for deduction amounted to a question of fact that needed to be examined with reference to the evidence on record.
The Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the limb or charge under which the penalty was being levied. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in not making additions as the cash deposits pertained to a trust, and the bank had erroneously used the assessee's PAN. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was not deficient as it clearly indicated the intention to levy penalty under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal also found no merit in the contention regarding mechanical approval for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the jurisdictional AO for a limited purpose. This is to determine the total income after considering the reconciliation of income reported with Form 26AS and after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of depreciation on goodwill to the Assessing Officer for examination of allowability and actual cost. The issue of legal and professional expenses was also remanded for verification of expenditure for the relevant year.
The Tribunal held that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) was rightly denied as the assessee failed to produce the required DSIR approval forms (3CM or 3CL). However, the Tribunal allowed the claim for 100% deduction of capital expenditure incurred on scientific research under Section 35(1)(iv).
The Tribunal has issued a corrigendum to correct a typographical error in its previous order. The word 'assessee' in paragraph 6 of the order dated 30.11.2022 has been substituted with the word 'Revenue'.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the land was a capital asset as it was held for 13 years and rental income was assessed under house property. However, the cost of shed construction was not properly substantiated before the AO, hence this issue was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide evidence that the land was non-agricultural and within 8 km of the municipal area with a population less than 10,000. Evidence showed the land was used for agricultural activities, making the compensation exempt under Section 10(37).
The Tribunal held that the assessment was initiated in violation of CBDT instructions as the assessee herself made no investment in immovable property. The addition made by the AO was quashed as the basis of scrutiny failed.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of depreciation on goodwill to the Assessing Officer for examination of allowability and actual cost. The issue of legal and professional expenses was also remanded for verification of expenditure for the relevant year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.