Loading ITAT cases…
165 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that since the contribution amount had gone out of the assessee's hands and would not return, the disallowance was not justified. The claim was allowed to the extent of the contribution made in the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for exemption under Section 54F, even if they received multiple flats, following the Madras High Court judgment in CIT v. Smt. V.R. Karpagam. This was a second round of litigation where the Tribunal confirmed its earlier decision.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the tax effect of the deleted disallowance was less than the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowances based on dates of purchase/sale and industrial averages were surmise. While the assessee failed to support its books of accounts with evidence, the AO's additions were excessive. The CIT(A)'s estimation of net income at 5% of turnover was considered fair.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits alone cannot be the subject of addition without considering cash withdrawals. The addition was limited to the peak credit in the bank account. A further addition based on a presumed 1% commission was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the claim for idle capacity adjustment was not admissible as it is a normal cost in service industries and the comparables' data was not available. However, the Tribunal found that the foreign exchange loss on forward contracts was a normal business transaction and not an extraordinary item warranting exclusion.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for suppression of sales, finding no constructive material to support it. It upheld the disallowance of audit fees under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of disallowance under Section 40A(3) based on Rule 6DD(h).
The Tribunal held that the issue was whether the FMV of the land should be Rs. 300/- per Sq. Yard as on 01.04.1981. The assessee pointed out that in the case of a co-owner, Shri Vallabhaneni Rajesh, the CIT(A) had determined the FMV at Rs. 2000/- per Sq. Yard as on 01.04.1981, and the Revenue had accepted this by not filing an appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s earlier order for the co-owner had considered factors like the upgradation of Vijayawada Municipality to Corporation status and the commercial value of the property, finding the AO's Rs. 300/- value too low and the assessee's Rs. 4000/- value unconvincing. Since the Revenue accepted the Rs. 2000/- FMV in the co-owner's case, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the same FMV of Rs. 2000/- per Sq. Yard for the assessee to compute the capital gain. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits alone cannot be the subject of addition without considering cash withdrawals. The addition was limited to the peak credit in the bank account. A further addition based on a presumed 1% commission was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the claim for idle capacity adjustment was not admissible as it is a normal cost in service industries and the comparables' data was not available. However, the Tribunal found that the foreign exchange loss on forward contracts was a normal business transaction and not an extraordinary item warranting exclusion.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowances based on dates of purchase/sale and industrial averages were surmise. While the assessee failed to support its books of accounts with evidence, the AO's additions were excessive. The CIT(A)'s estimation of net income at 5% of turnover was considered fair.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's dominant purpose was the promotion and development of the film industry, which is a general public utility. Activities incidental to this main object, even if profitable, do not disqualify it from exemption under Section 11, especially considering the amendment to Section 2(15) and the principle of dominant purpose.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing issues required a revisit by the DRP due to various factors including recalculation of comparable margins. The issue of employee's PF contribution was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the case. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that by virtue of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, an appeal of the Revenue would not lie before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than ₹10,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.