Loading ITAT cases…
243 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of Rs. 1 Lac related to site expenses. However, it rejected the assessee's grounds concerning wages, cost of super structure, lease rent, and amortization of let-out property.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' in Section 54F, prior to the 2014 amendment, included multiple flats or residential units. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption for acquiring more than one flat.
The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) applied a foreign exchange income filter to exclude one comparable but not others. Additionally, there was no decision from the DRP on one of the comparables. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals. For the Assessee's appeal, the Tribunal allowed the exclusion of four comparables (two from each segment) as argued by the Assessee, following previous Tribunal orders.
The Tribunal held that the AO's computation of capital gains was not in accordance with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The future income projections were not a valid basis for determining the full value of consideration for the transfer of shares, especially as Section 50C, which allows for stamp duty valuation, applies only to land or buildings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the crucial issue of whether the business was 'set up', which is a prerequisite for computing business income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the additions. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its earlier orders in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years, and the Revenue could not point out any distinguishing facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the assessee's books were not rejected and the assessment was not made under Section 144. The AO had simply applied the GP and NP rates from the preceding year.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance to the CIT(A) for fresh decision, considering the retrospective applicability of the second proviso. The other grounds regarding ad-hoc disallowance and interest under Section 244A were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the identity of the creditor was established by the earlier cheque transactions. The Tribunal also found that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were established.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The circulars were also held to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The tribunal observed that the issue regarding the applicability of Rule 114E(2) was fundamental and had not been decided by the CIT(A). Therefore, the tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the property sold was not vacant land but contained houses and shops, and the payments made to tenants for vacating were valid. Therefore, the deduction should be allowed under Section 54, not Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The circular is applicable to pending cases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a genuine belief that Section 44AB was not applicable due to its registration under Section 12A and potential exemption under Section 11. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the issue after admitting the additional evidence and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both parties.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The circulars were also held to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that while the AO cannot entertain a fresh claim without a revised return, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal can decide such claims on merit. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the additions. The Tribunal found no reason to take a contrary view, as the issue was covered by its earlier orders in the assessee's own case for multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s orders to be cryptic and lacking proper reasoning. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh, speaking, and reasoned decisions after providing adequate opportunities to both parties.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal by including one company as a comparable, while dismissing other grounds. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection by excluding two companies from the comparable list.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for provisions for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) is allowable only to the extent debited to the profit and loss account. For interest expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not to be made if depositors provided Form 15G/H, as the filing of these forms with the prescribed authority was considered a procedural requirement.
The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had passed non-speaking orders, failing to consider the assessee's specific arguments. Consequently, the DRP's orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient opportunity of hearing in the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 20,80,000 in the ICICI bank account was sufficiently explained by prior withdrawals from the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation regarding the withdrawals being for the purpose of his son's medical college admission, which did not materialize, was supported by documentary evidence such as admission letters and demand drafts. The Tribunal observed that the department had not disputed the fact of withdrawals or the subsequent redeposit. While acknowledging the time gap between the withdrawals in June 2012 and the deposit in November 2012, the Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that these withdrawn amounts were spent for any specific purpose other than the intended medical admission or that the assessee did not have the funds available for redeposit. Citing the decision of the Cochin Bench in Sri. Mathew Philip v. ITO, the Tribunal held that when withdrawals are not disputed and there is no evidence of their utilization for other purposes, it should be presumed that the cash remained with the assessee and was subsequently redeposited. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to delete the impugned addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made an estimation of agricultural income without a proper basis, especially since the assessee had consistently offered agricultural income in previous years which was accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 35(1) should not be denied to the assessee merely because the approval of the recipient organization was withdrawn subsequent to the payment. The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the payment to Orange Properties, to the extent of Rs. 82,32,467 confirmed by Orange Properties as commission, should be allowed as a business expenditure. The evidence indicated that Orange Properties marketed flats developed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to exclude certain comparable companies and to apply the internal TNMM method for benchmarking. The revenue's grounds of appeal were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal found that the DRP's order was cryptic and did not properly adjudicate the issues. Regarding tools and spares, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the expenses to determine if they were revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This defect was not curable by Section 292B.
The Tribunal found that the DRP's order was cryptic and did not properly adjudicate the issues. Regarding tools and spares, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the expenses to determine if they were revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal observed irregularities in the orders of the authorities below, particularly concerning the application of filters in transfer pricing and the AO's failure to consider prior year depreciation directions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the transfer pricing issues for re-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of software expenses as royalty, citing a High Court decision. It also allowed the claim for foreign exchange loss, considering it revenue expenditure. The disallowance of AMP expenses was deleted, following previous tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal restored the issues of disallowance under Section 14A and Section 36(1)(iii) back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination. The CIT(A) was directed to consider whether the AO was justified in capitalizing interest on borrowed capital for investments and to re-evaluate the business expediency of advances to sister concerns.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT guidelines. Consequently, the assessee's appeal and cross-objection were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the turnover filter is a relevant criterion for comparability. Given the significant difference in turnover between the assessee and the two disputed companies, they should be excluded.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of comparable companies with turnover exceeding Rs. 200 crore. It also restored the issue of BNR Udyog Limited's comparability to the TPO for fresh examination. Furthermore, the Tribunal deleted the negative working capital adjustment made by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars, which set monetary limits for filing appeals, apply retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding Section 14A disallowance, limiting it to the exempt income. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for tailoring and maintenance expenses, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on warranty expenditure provision, restoring the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. They agreed that the assessee's cost-plus markup model meant under-booking expenses in the exempt unit would reduce revenue, offering no advantage. The AO's reallocation was based on surmises.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS, as the issue of foreign travel eligibility under LTC was debatable. Following previous decisions, the penalty levied under Section 271C was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee offered no explanation for the penalty proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) was without granting a proper opportunity to the assessee. The application for registration needs to be reconsidered by the CIT(Exemptions) after providing the assessee with due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. The circulars were also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if receipts related to a company in which the assessee is a director, and to re-examine the disallowance of agricultural income, allowing the assessee to provide supporting details.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company is null and void. Relying on Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court judgments, it was decided that the assessment order was bad in law and therefore quashed.