Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. It also confirmed that agricultural income is not taxable if the land was used for agriculture. The cost of acquisition for built-up units was increased to 60% of the awarded amount.
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. It also confirmed that agricultural income is not taxable if the land was used for agriculture. The cost of acquisition for built-up units was increased to 60% of the awarded amount.
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. It also confirmed that agricultural income is not taxable if the land was used for agriculture. The cost of acquisition for built-up units was increased to 60% of the awarded amount.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the addition for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. It also confirmed that agricultural income is not taxable if the land was used for agriculture. The cost of acquisition for built-up units was increased to 60% of the awarded amount.
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. It also confirmed that agricultural income is not taxable if the land was used for agriculture. The cost of acquisition for built-up units was increased to 60% of the awarded amount.
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. It also confirmed that agricultural income is not taxable if the land was used for agriculture. The cost of acquisition for built-up units was increased to 60% of the awarded amount.
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources, and adjusted the cost of acquisition. It also directed the deletion of additions made on account of agricultural income, confirming the land's agricultural nature.
The Tribunal held that compensation for constructed property on land should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. It also confirmed that agricultural income is not taxable if the land was used for agriculture. The cost of acquisition for built-up units was increased to 60% of the awarded amount.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, restricting the additions for bogus purchases to 6% based on consistency with a lead case.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that documentary evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition. The CIT(A) found that the AO had ignored crucial evidence like Form 26AS, the assessee's submissions, and the directions issued under Section 144A of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard and the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide any documentary evidence. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the lower appellate authority's decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was then admitted for hearing on its merits.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the absence of a condonation application. Given the lack of proper procedure and communication, the Tribunal decided not to admit the appeal for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54F is allowable even if capital gains arise from the sale of more than one long-term capital asset, provided the sale proceeds are invested in the construction or purchase of one residential house and other conditions are met. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision order under Section 263 was not justified. The AO had conducted inquiries, and the Pr. CIT could not simply disagree with the AO's plausible conclusion or direct a re-examination without establishing the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be disallowed. While the CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 5%, the Tribunal increased it to 6% to maintain consistency with similar cases.
The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be disallowed. While the CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 5%, the Tribunal increased it to 6% to maintain consistency with similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by cash sales reflected in the books and return, and the unsecured loans were old and duly reflected in the previous year's balance sheet. Therefore, the additions were unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on incriminating documents found during the survey. However, the Tribunal also noted that the DVO's valuation methods and rates were questionable and directed a reconsideration of the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence which was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case, which had adjudicated similar issues in favor of the assessee. The High Court found no substantial question of law involved in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on incriminating documents found during the survey. However, the Tribunal also noted that the DVO's valuation methods and rates were questionable and directed a reconsideration of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on incriminating documents found during the survey. However, the Tribunal also noted that the DVO's valuation methods and rates were questionable and directed a reconsideration of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on incriminating documents found during the survey. However, the Tribunal also noted that the DVO's valuation methods and rates were questionable and directed a reconsideration of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons satisfactory. On merits, it held that the cash deposit was out of the assessee's declared turnover under Section 44AD, and the AO had not properly refuted the evidence provided by the assessee.