Loading ITAT cases…
141 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular is applicable to pending cases as well.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT instructions. The assessee's C.O. was dismissed as it was not pressed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to either satisfy the CIT(A) about the electronic filing requirements or submit the demand notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54F, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment which states that the benefit cannot be denied if the capital gain is invested in a residential house, even if the transaction is not complete within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal held that prior to July 1, 2016, Form 3CL did not have legal sanctity for quantifying weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The assessee had obtained approval in Form 3CM, fulfilling the conditions for deduction.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Tata Elxsi Ltd. from the comparable list due to functional dissimilarity. It also directed the retention of FCS Software Solutions Ltd. in the comparable list, as it was already included by the CIT(A) after verification.
The Tribunal held that Form 3CL was not mandatory for allowing deduction under Section 35(2AB) prior to July 1, 2016. The approval of the R&D facility in Form 3CM was sufficient for claiming the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the reasons for delay were similar to a co-owner's case where delay was condoned. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. As per CBDT notification, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50.00 Lakhs are not required to be filed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in selecting its foreign AE as the tested party, reversing the TPO's rejection of this approach. The Tribunal also found that the TPO/DRP was not justified in determining the arm's length price of management fees as Nil without proper examination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable because the show cause notice was not clear regarding whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This is to examine the facts of the present case in light of two conflicting Karnataka High Court judgments.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 20 lakhs disallowance to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be provided an opportunity to support the claim with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the declared amount was in the nature of business income and the indirect expenses, though not directly increasing work-in-progress, were business-related and thus allowable as deductions. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction was accepted.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the CIT (Exemptions) should issue fresh notices to the assessee's representative's address. The CIT was directed to adjudicate the applications afresh after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that a request for condonation of delay was indeed filed with the appeal. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) should have considered this request before dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. This circular was also applicable to pending cases.
The Tribunal held that the total tax effect of the deleted disallowances was below Rs. 50 Lakhs. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal directed the inclusion of four specific companies in the list of comparables for determining ALP. It also restored the issues of working capital adjustment and foreign exchange gain/loss to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the decision to pay remuneration to directors is a management decision and cannot be questioned by the AO. It also held that expenses like travel and telecommunication should be reduced from both export turnover and total turnover for calculating Section 10A deduction, following Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A needs to be verified by the AO. The assessee's claim of utilizing non-interest-bearing funds for investments needs to be examined in light of judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the same 17% markup agreed under MAP for Denmark AEs should be applied to transactions with non-Denmark AEs, following a precedent from a similar case. The appeal was decided based on this principle.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration on merits. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard, following a similar decision for a sister concern.
The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of not receiving notices plausible, especially given the substantial tax demand. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow for adjudication on merits.
The tribunal allowed the deduction for interest paid on delayed statutory dues, holding it to be compensatory. For the term loan processing fee, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 25 crores based on an admission made under Section 132(4) when the assessee later established that the admission was incorrect and the expenses were duly accounted for. Consequently, the disallowance of depreciation was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the communication gap due to the address difference. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits, which required fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued for penalty was defective as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty imposed was bad in law and invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance and the claim of non-service of notices. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for appeals is retrospective and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 for unproved liabilities, dismissing that ground. Regarding cash deposits, the Tribunal found that mere consent cannot confer jurisdiction and directed the AO to re-examine the addition based on the peak credit method.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) due to a change in address following amalgamation. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was dispatched after the period of limitation. Following the ratio of a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal restored the grounds related to proportionate disallowance of TDS credit and carry forward of losses to the CIT(A) for adjudication. However, the disallowance of provision for audit fees for non-deduction of TDS was upheld.
The Tribunal held that companies with significantly higher turnover than the assessee should be excluded from the comparable set, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. The AO was directed to exclude five specific comparable companies.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, remanded the issue of disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(Exemptions) had already granted registration under section 12AA, it was satisfied with the charitable nature and genuineness of the trust's objects and activities. The Tribunal followed previous rulings that the absence of activities at the time of application should not be a ground for rejection if the trust is newly formed and has approached the authorities promptly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing loan confirmations, affidavits, and proof of income tax returns filed by creditors. The AO failed to conduct further inquiries, making the addition unsustainable.