Loading ITAT cases…
113 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the cash deposits through evidence related to his trading activity, which was accepted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the addition made under Section 69 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange losses on capital contributions are not allowable as revenue expenses. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow advertisement expenses as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange losses on loans to associated enterprises, treated as equity by the TPO, are capital in nature and not allowable. However, advertisement expenses are revenue in nature and allowable.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and brand building expenses are generally revenue in nature and that the initial accounting treatment does not determine the character of expenditure. The genuineness of the expenses was not disputed.
The assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities can entertain claims not made in the original return or considered by the AO, provided they are legally tenable. The case was restored to the AO for verification and allowance of the set-off if legally valid.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order before the due date for filing written submissions, thus denying the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based solely on a show-cause notice issued by the Excise Department, without independent inquiry or a final order, is not justifiable. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment based solely on a show-cause notice issued by the Excise Department, without independent inquiry or a final order, is not justifiable. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish any cash payment of Rs. 14,00,000/- from the assessee's accounts. The entire payment and refund were through banking channels and duly accounted for, and the cancellation of the flat booking was also explained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to collect TCS on scrap sales, even as a trader, as the buyer had not furnished the prescribed Form 27C. Therefore, the tax liability and interest levied were upheld.
The Tribunal held that Gujarat Electricity Board is a statutory body, not a subsidiary company. The cash payment was made due to unavailability of banking facilities in the village and the identity of the payee was not disputed, making the disallowance unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to justify the cash deposits from prior withdrawals. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.