Loading ITAT cases…
96 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that interest earned on deposits with commercial banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is not part of the core business of providing credit facilities to members. However, it directed the AO to allow pro-rata expenses related to this interest income.
The Tribunal, with no objection from the respondent, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal partly allowed the claim for depreciation on furniture and fixture, but sustained the disallowance on factory building depreciation. It allowed the full claim for electricity expenses and partly allowed the claim for employee payments, restricting the disallowance to 50%. The appeal regarding vehicle maintenance expenses was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, accepting the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 which revised monetary thresholds for appeals. The Revenue can seek restoration if they can show inapplicability of the circular.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was issued after the assessment order was passed, which is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Failure to record satisfaction before or on completion of assessment proceedings vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier AYs, directed that 50% of the cash deposited should be treated as undisclosed income. This was based on the observation that cash was deposited and immediately transferred to a firm's account.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lacs as per CBDT Circular 3/2018. The case did not fall under any exemption clauses.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance, agreeing that no TDS was required on pure reimbursement of expenses where no income element was involved. It also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding a separate issue of TDS demand and interest, finding that the assessee had made the payments and the discrepancies were due to technical errors.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of section 200A on June 1, 2015, there was no enabling provision to levy fees under section 234E through an intimation under section 200A. Therefore, the levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under section 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 200A as it stood prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under section 234E was beyond the scope of permissible adjustments under section 200A as it stood before June 1, 2015. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the absence of representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The Revenue can seek restoration if they can show the circular is inapplicable.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was passed summarily without a proper speaking order or adequate opportunity for the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society engaged in providing credit facilities on surplus funds invested in banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, it directed the AO to determine the net interest income and consider allowing deduction under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeals summarily without dealing with the issues on merit. The orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeals summarily without dealing with the issues on merit. The orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeals summarily without dealing with the issues on merit. The orders were set aside.
The Tribunal partly allowed the claim for depreciation on furniture and fixture, but sustained the disallowance on factory building depreciation. It allowed the full claim for electricity expenses and partly allowed the claim for employee payments, restricting the disallowance to 50%. The appeal regarding vehicle maintenance expenses was dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the claim for depreciation on furniture and fixture, but sustained the disallowance on factory building depreciation. It allowed the full claim for electricity expenses and partly allowed the claim for employee payments, restricting the disallowance to 50%. The appeal regarding vehicle maintenance expenses was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be fully substantiated, a complete disallowance was not justified. Therefore, a part of the purchase amount was sustained as an addition to account for potential inflation in purchase costs.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in partly rejecting the valuation report and adopting a lower cost of acquisition based on comparable sale instances. The addition of Long Term Capital Gain was confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance, agreeing that no TDS was required on pure reimbursement of expenses where no income element was involved. It also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding a separate issue of TDS demand and interest, finding that the assessee had made the payments and the discrepancies were due to technical errors.
The Tribunal remitted the penalty concerning the sundry creditors addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, to verify if payments were made from undisclosed bank accounts covered by the Settlement Commission. The penalty concerning the Gross Profit addition was deleted as it was based on an estimate and the assessee's explanation was accepted in principle.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dealt with the merits casually and the Assessing Officer had not examined the matter. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of low GP rate, finding the fall to be marginal and unsubstantiated. However, it confirmed the addition for delayed PF contribution by respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the assets in question were office equipment and had been used, even if minimally. However, as this specific plea was not raised before lower authorities, the matter was remitted back for verification.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea in principle that office equipment used even for a short time is eligible for depreciation. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, to show short realization due to late payment charges. The Tribunal found that the accounting treatment was tax neutral and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, which was below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT Circular. The appeal did not fall under any of the exemption clauses mentioned in the circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated by the CBDT circular. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the foundation for the assessment order (the section 263 order) was extinguished, the assessment order itself was invalid. Therefore, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order upholding it were vacated.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent provisions. Compliance with Section 194C(6) alone is sufficient to avoid disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), even if Section 194C(7) is violated.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, it can be presumed that interest-free advances are made from such funds. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the belated issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) was a jurisdictional defect that could not be cured. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal found the reassessment order to be bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine as the tax effect was below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT circular, and the case did not fall under any exemption clauses.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice, which is a jurisdictional defect. Following Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court precedents, the reassessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the value of the property for capital gains computation should not exceed the sale consideration declared in the agreement, considering the date of agreement, part payments received, and the circle rate applicable at that time.
The Tribunal held that currency derivative transactions carried out on a recognized stock exchange are eligible transactions and fall under the exceptions provided in Section 43(5)(d) of the Act. Therefore, losses from such transactions are to be treated as normal business loss, not speculative loss.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary to the relative of the director was not justified as the assessee provided sufficient explanation regarding his qualifications and experience. The Tribunal also held that the ad-hoc disallowance of travelling expenses was unsustainable as no specific defects were pointed out by the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that the value of the property for capital gains computation should not exceed the sale consideration declared in the agreement, considering the date of agreement, part payments received, and the circle rate applicable at that time.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable based on the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable because the basis of the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for imposing the penalty changed significantly from 'concealment of particulars' to 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars'. Additionally, the assessee's bonafide action of withdrawing the claim without prior knowledge from the revenue was considered.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the PF contribution, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, it allowed the appeal concerning commission expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the payments.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the PF contribution, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, it allowed the appeal concerning commission expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the payments.
The Tribunal held that the value of the property for capital gains computation should not exceed the sale consideration declared in the agreement, considering the date of agreement, part payments received, and the circle rate applicable at that time.