Loading ITAT cases…
276 tribunal orders from the Surat bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 276 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the VO was valid. However, it allowed the deduction under Section 54B for investment made prior to the sale of the old asset, following various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as income from house property, as any income derived from them is business income. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for interest expenses, considering it a business expenditure due to sufficient capital and nexus with business activities.
The Tribunal held that brought forward business and depreciation losses are allowable for set-off against capital gains arising from the sale of business assets, even if assessed as capital gains. It also held that land and building are distinct assets, and capital gains on land should be treated as long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's action of accepting the disclosure of Rs. 1 crore but rejecting its source as business receipts was improper. If the receipt is considered in the assessee's hands, it must be treated as business receipts, as there was no other business activity. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that only the profit embedded in the suppressed receipts should be added to the income, not the gross receipts. The CIT(A)'s estimation of profit, considering the assessee's disclosure and historical profit margins, was deemed reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the cash deposits by issuing notices under Section 142(1) and examining the bank statements provided by the assessee. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the cash deposits by issuing notices under Section 142(1) and examining the bank statements provided by the assessee. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the cash deposits by issuing notices under Section 142(1) and examining the bank statements provided by the assessee. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable because the AO did not make any addition on account of unexplained loans, which was the basis for reopening. The Tribunal also found a lack of live-link between the information available to the AO and the belief formed for reopening.
The Tribunal considered the facts and accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable because the AO did not make any addition on account of unexplained loans, which was the basis for reopening. The Tribunal also found a lack of live-link between the information available to the AO and the belief formed for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The present cases did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the circular.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs are not maintainable, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The present cases did not fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs are not maintainable, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The present cases did not fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs are not maintainable, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The present cases did not fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging provision for levying fees for late filing of TDS statements. The fee could be levied even without a specific regulatory provision in Section 200A for computation, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that while the rejection of books was justified due to the lack of a stock register, the AO's estimation of gross profit at 25% lacked a proper basis. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the estimated gross profit rate to 20%.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including affidavits confirming the refund of booking advances. The penalty orders were set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including affidavits confirming the refund of booking advances. The penalty orders were set aside and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the AO to consider the details filed by the assessee regarding agricultural income and N.A. charges.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the Rs. 20 lakhs threshold specified by the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was not properly granted as the Additional Commissioner merely signed the approval column without recording any satisfaction. Consequently, the assessments were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is a deeming provision applicable only to the transfer of land or building or both. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the transfer of leasehold rights.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as they were hit by a CBDT circular prohibiting appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the "on-money" receipts are clearly linked to the sale of flats and thus constitute business receipts. Consequently, they should be taxed as business income. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to not reject the books of accounts and to delete the estimated net profit.