Loading ITAT cases…
145 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing the AO to reduce foreign currency expenses from export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The revenue's appeal was dismissed on this issue.
The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were not discussed by the lower authorities regarding whether deposits were from the assessee's own funds or liabilities. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that payments made to IBM Philippines were not taxable in India as they constituted business income falling under Article 7 of the DTAA, and IBM Philippines had no Permanent Establishment in India. It also held that the higher TDS rate under Section 206AA would not override beneficial provisions of DTAAs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be treated as an appeal under Section 201(1) of the Act, and the appeal concerning Section 201(1A) was dismissed. The Tribunal found no discrepancy in the CIT(A)'s decision, which relied on a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have admitted additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is intended to tax dividend in the hands of the shareholder and not a non-shareholder. Since the assessee was not a shareholder in the company that provided the loan, the provision could not be invoked against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's actual activities, primarily earning substantial income from stall space charges by renting a hall, were not charitable in nature and did not align with its stated objects. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act could not be upheld. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed as bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue's representative admitted the tax effect was below this limit.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the issue back for fresh consideration. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that evidence regarding the accountant's sickness was available and could not be produced earlier.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs cannot be filed by the revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to procedural defects, specifically the order being passed after the assessee's death without adequate opportunity for the legal representative to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54F for all three residential units received under the JDA, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was upheld as consequential.
The Tribunal held that the crucial finding regarding whether the assessee possessed a banking license from the RBI, as required for a co-operative bank, was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for this determination.
The Tribunal held that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure in the Income Tax Act, 1961, except for specific provisions like Section 35D. The assessee failed to establish its claim for deduction as deferred revenue expenditure for sales tax of earlier years.
The Tribunal held that rectification under Section 154 is only for mistakes apparent from the record and not for debatable issues. The issue of allowing partner's salary as expenditure against the declared additional income was considered debatable.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,37,860/- for M/s. S.I. International Ltd. was correctly offered to tax as cessation of liability. For M/s. Beijia Industrial Co. Ltd., the addition under Section 41(1) was sustained only to the extent of Rs. 2,54,550/- after giving credit for the Rs. 5,25,000/- paid as per the tripartite settlement.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be bonafide, noting that cash withdrawals from his account exceeded the deposits. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,25,700/- as unexplained cash credits was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to prove service of notices on the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside to ensure substantial justice.
The assessee had previously requested the withdrawal of the appeal. In light of this request, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) cannot be considered as dividend for the purpose of Section 115O, as per the explanation to Section 115Q which was in force during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the levy of DDT under Section 115O was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of various expenses, following the principle of consistency with previous assessment years. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal deleted the proportionate disallowance of interest on advances to sister concerns, finding sufficient interest-free funds available.
The ITAT held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Revenue cannot file appeals before the Tribunal when the tax effect is below Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not present and therefore not interested in pursuing the appeals. Applying the principle that law aids the vigilant, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of various expenses, following the principle of consistency with previous assessment years. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal deleted the proportionate disallowance of interest on advances to sister concerns, finding sufficient interest-free funds available.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of various expenses, following the principle of consistency with previous assessment years. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal deleted the proportionate disallowance of interest on advances to sister concerns, finding sufficient interest-free funds available.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly examined the evidence and submissions regarding the disallowance of expenditure towards Contractors Benevolent Fund, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for interest paid to a bank, and the claim for depreciation. Therefore, these issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to provide all requested details and evidence, and the CIT(E) was instructed to pass a speaking and reasoned order.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance of operating expenditure for AY 2010-11 to the Assessing Officer for verification regarding its inclusion in work-in-progress. For AY 2011-12, the same issue was also set aside to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that when an AE receives credit beyond the agreed period, it constitutes an international transaction requiring adjustment. The matter was restored to the AO/TPO to determine the exact amount of delayed payment and calculate interest at LIBOR + 400 basis points for the relevant financial year.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to provide all requested details and evidence, and the CIT(E) was instructed to pass a speaking and reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the seigniorage rate used by the AO was not the FMV and that the FMV of Silver Oak trees as on 1/4/1981 should be computed at 13% of the sale value, similar to a previous case. The AO was directed to re-compute the capital gains accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the seigniorage rate of Rs. 10.20 per cubic foot adopted by the AO as FMV was erroneous as it was not the market value. It directed the AO to re-compute the capital gains by adopting the FMV as 13% of the sale value, similar to a previous case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 was not clear, violating the principles of natural justice. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in both appeals was below Rs. 20 Lacs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal, citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in both appeals was below Rs. 20 Lacs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D could be made as the assessee had not earned any exempt income. For disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) concerning interest expenditure on funds advanced to sister concerns, the Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, finding sufficient non-interest bearing funds available.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts regarding the commencement of business and the transfer pricing issue concerning interest on CCDs. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that an opportunity should have been provided before the CIT(A) decided on the LIBOR rate.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D could be made as the assessee had not earned any exempt income. For disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) concerning interest expenditure on funds advanced to sister concerns, the Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, finding sufficient non-interest bearing funds available.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 20 Lacs. Therefore, following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue was not maintainable.