Loading ITAT cases…
199 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which instructs withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal could not proceed.
The Tribunal held that transactions of buying and selling commodities without physical delivery are speculative. Consequently, such transactions do not constitute turnover for the purpose of audit under Section 44AB, and the penalty levied under Section 271B is deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to use the higher sale consideration. The claim for development cost was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction for evidence submission and cross-verification. The exemption under Section 54F was allowed, following a High Court precedent where investment in a spouse's name did not disallow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information already available in the assessment record, which constituted a change of opinion and not new tangible material. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not examined the issue of whether the investment was made from own funds and if the interest expenditure was exclusively for financing operations. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of justice. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2011-12 due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing the AO to adjust taxes paid on income declared for earlier years against the confirmed income, while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation and certain expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s adjudication lacked a speaking order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee's appeal regarding TDS credit was allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the exchange fluctuation loss incurred on the repayment of the loan is a regular revenue loss. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. and allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2011-12 due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing the AO to adjust taxes paid on income declared for earlier years against the confirmed income, while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation and certain expenses.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding TDS liability was covered by its own previous decisions, which found no liability for the assessee to deduct TDS on the payments in question. Similarly, the issue of unabsorbed depreciation was also covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the advances were for business and commercial purposes and not deemed dividend. However, it upheld the Assessing Officer's addition of rental income for the property used by the company.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the details of the transactions. The assessee claimed the Rs. 28,00,000/- was withdrawal and not salary, and the canteen expenses were business liabilities. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding TDS liability was covered by its own previous decisions, which found no liability for the assessee to deduct TDS on the payments in question. Similarly, the issue of unabsorbed depreciation was also covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while interest on interest is not permissible, refunds should be adjusted first towards interest due to the assessee and then towards the tax portion. This adjustment should follow the pattern prescribed in Section 140A of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s adjudication lacked a speaking order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee's appeal regarding TDS credit was allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing these appeals.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing these appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on additional depreciation, higher depreciation, and TDS disallowances, following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT decisions. The assessee's appeals on Section 14A disallowances were partly allowed, with the issue remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on additional depreciation, higher depreciation, and TDS disallowances, following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT decisions. The assessee's appeals on Section 14A disallowances were partly allowed, with the issue remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on additional depreciation, higher depreciation, and TDS disallowances, following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT decisions. The assessee's appeals on Section 14A disallowances were partly allowed, with the issue remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on additional depreciation, higher depreciation, and TDS disallowances, following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT decisions. The assessee's appeals on Section 14A disallowances were partly allowed, with the issue remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on additional depreciation, higher depreciation, and TDS disallowances, following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT decisions. The assessee's appeals on Section 14A disallowances were partly allowed, with the issue remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the stated procedural error.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to trusts engaged in medical relief or education. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in rejecting the registration based on this proviso.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income or the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee, whichever is lower. The Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 2,91,470/-.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was less than the monetary limit of ₹.50,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the ship in question was a self-propelling vessel with specialized equipment for offshore installations. Following a previous decision for the same ship and issue in AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found the assessee eligible for the tonnage scheme.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the share premium was received in the financial year 1995-1996. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO did not get an opportunity to verify fresh evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it was held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal due to the low tax effect, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on additional depreciation, higher depreciation, and TDS disallowances, following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT decisions. The assessee's appeals on Section 14A disallowances were partly allowed, with the issue remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings solely on the basis of unaddressed objections, as the AO had passed a speaking order. The Tribunal also noted that other contentions raised by the assessee were not dealt with by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found the explanation for the date discrepancy plausible, particularly an affidavit from the jeweller stating cash was paid before the receipt was issued. The matter was therefore remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction for delayed PF/ESI remittances if paid before the return filing due date. However, regarding the land sale, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning for treating it as a capital asset lacked justification and remanded the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that only the profits generated on the surrender of the scheme should be taxed, as the assessee had not claimed deduction for the initial investment. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of the initial contribution made.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed/not maintainable, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that connected appeals arising from the same issue should be disposed of by a single appellate authority to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting opinions. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the interest earned by a co-operative society from investments in a district co-operative bank, which is also a co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The assessee's appeal was allowed based on jurisdictional High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits made with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. They relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision which equated cooperative banks with cooperative societies for this purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal could not proceed.
The Tribunal found no sufficient reason to condone the significant delay, as the assessee failed to provide proof of filing a restoration petition before the CIT(A) and acknowledged the lack of specific provisions for such a petition.
The Tribunal found no sufficient reason to condone the significant delay as the assessee failed to provide proof of filing a restoration petition before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also found no merits in the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting opinions, both appeals should be heard by the same authority. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) to be heard along with the pending appeal against the assessment order.
The Tribunal, respectfully following its own earlier decision for AY 2009-10, reversed the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 10B for the assessment year in question as the period had expired.