Loading ITAT cases…
139 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The cross-objections were not pressed by the assessees.
The Tribunal found that the allowability of the deduction depends on proving specific facts, such as the land being HUF property, the son carrying out agricultural activities, and the assessee's physical unfitness for registration. These facts were not sufficiently demonstrated.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The cross-objections were not pressed by the assessees.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C can be attracted even if consideration is paid 'in kind', provided the value is ascertainable and settled in monetary terms. However, in this specific case, the property in by-products was not passed on by the assessees as milling charges, thus TDS provisions were not attracted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on grounds related to unexplained bank balances and expenses, but remanded one ground concerning a capital account addition back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeal regarding penalty was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available, it is presumed that investments are made from these funds. Following judicial precedents, the disallowance of interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented total sale receipts of the trading business, not the entire income. They directed that the assessee be taxed at 5% on the turnover reflected in the bank account as per Section 44AF.
The Tribunal held that the issue of TDS deduction on payments to petty tank owners was debatable, especially since the High Court had admitted an appeal on a similar question of law. The assessee's explanation was considered bonafide.
The Tribunal held that the advance received was a trade advance made for business expediency and not a deemed dividend. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is only permissible to the extent of exempt income received, which was nil in this case.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80-IC is limited to five years and cannot be claimed again for substantial expansion in a later year. The Apex Court's decision in CIT Vs Classic Binding Industries was relied upon.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's production variations fell within the acceptable range. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80IC on enhanced profits, based on a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that since the search was initiated after June 1, 2007, and before July 1, 2012, the penalty should have been levied under section 271AAA, not section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was illegal.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied when there is deliberate concealment or a bogus claim. Since the assessee's claim was considered bonafide and not a deliberate suppression or inaccurate filing, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, confirming that the surrendered income arising from stock discrepancy was business income. It further held that business losses of the current year could be set off against this business income as per law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, citing apex court decisions.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs kept as margin money and excise duty refund are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC as they are directly related to the manufacturing business. However, product approval fees were not allowed deduction.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim, without concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, does not warrant a penalty. The assessee provided a bona fide explanation for its depreciation claim, and the revenue did not prove the explanation to be false.
The Tribunal found coherence issues and lack of direct incriminating evidence in the Assessing Officer's order. It agreed to treat the case as one of rejection of books of account and estimate the GP rate at par with the preceding year.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The addition to the capital gains was made solely by substituting the sale consideration with the stamp duty value as per the provisions of Section 50C. The actual consideration received by the assessee was not disputed. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no clear establishment of concealment of income over and above the actual sale consideration. The addition was a result of the deeming provisions of Section 50C, and therefore, the assessee could not be said to have filed inaccurate particulars or concealed income. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Madan Theatres and Fortune Hotels, which held that penalty is not leviable on additions made by invoking Section 50C when the actual consideration is not disputed. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs. 75,25,415 was upheld.
The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153C are invalid if no incriminating material is found during the search, especially when original assessments were already concluded. For one assessment year, the disallowance of interest on advances was also deleted based on sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeal. However, due to the low tax effect and applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal where withdrawal was sought. For the cross-appeals, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both the legal issue of reopening and the merits.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal where withdrawal was sought. For the cross-appeals, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both the legal issue of reopening and the merits.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal where withdrawal was sought. For the cross-appeals, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on both the legal issue of reopening and the merits.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous order. Therefore, the penalty was no longer sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals). It was held that the presumption theory regarding the use of own funds for advances, as laid down by the jurisdictional High Court, was not overruled by the Supreme Court in the context of Section 36(1)(iii).
The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153C are invalid if no incriminating material is found during the search, especially when original assessments were already concluded. For one assessment year, the disallowance of interest on advances was also deleted based on sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly segregated the cash surrender, as the entire surrender was accepted as business income and taxed. Following the precedent in DCIT vs. Shri Sanjeev Goyal, the Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271AAA is not leviable when income is disclosed during search, included in the return, and accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly segregated the cash surrender, as the entire surrender was accepted as business income and taxed. Following the precedent in DCIT vs. Shri Sanjeev Goyal, the Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271AAA is not leviable when income is disclosed during search, included in the return, and accepted by the Revenue.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the legal ground of reopening and that there was a dispute regarding the assessee's appearance. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that after availing 100% deduction for the first five years, the assessee is entitled to only 25% deduction for the subsequent five years, as per the Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the term 'tax' in Section 115JAA includes surcharge, and therefore, MAT credit should be allowed including surcharge and cess. The earlier decision relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished.
The Tribunal held that the term 'tax' in Section 115JAA includes surcharge, and therefore, MAT credit should be allowed including surcharge and cess. The earlier decision relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished.
The Tribunal held that the term 'tax' in Section 115JAA includes surcharge, and therefore, MAT credit should be allowed including surcharge and cess. The earlier decision relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished.
The Tribunal noted that the theft was not disputed but the quantum of loss was an issue. Since the assessee's books were impounded, preventing them from providing necessary details, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the theft was not disputed but the quantum of loss was an issue. Since the assessee's books were impounded, preventing them from providing necessary details, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an adjournment application does not automatically lead to dismissal of the appeal. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after rejecting the adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal principles and case law, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the claim for 100% deduction was not admissible beyond the initial five-year period. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs Classic Binding Industries was followed.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to produce the surviving creditors, considering the affidavits filed. The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor CIT(A) had addressed the affidavits.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal due to the assessee's persistent non-representation. The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in pursuing the appeals. Following established legal principles and case law, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.