Loading ITAT cases…
554 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 10.12.2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is binding on the Department. As the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions for press cake sales, finding no evidence of unaccounted sales and noting the assessee's practice of distributing it to farmers as manure. The addition for sundry creditors was also deleted as the figures did not pertain to the assessee's accounts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses without proper verification and that the sale consideration adopted by the Assessing Officer was without material basis. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the sale consideration returned by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) must be initiated in the assessment order in respect of the specific income sought to be penalized. Since the Assessing Officer explicitly initiated penalty proceedings only for the Rs. 3,50,00,000 addition and not for the Rs. 39,40,500 addition, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) on the latter amount was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's ground regarding the cost of improvement, stating that no evidence of capital expenditure was produced. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, allowing Rs. 5,00,000 as the cost of the new asset under Section 54F for additional construction.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in treating claimed short-term capital gains as business income and directed the AO to accept the claim. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of interest expense disallowance by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the sale deed and purchase deed of property submitted by the assessee, nor had they analyzed the bank account details. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that for an amount to be taxed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e), the recipient must be a registered and beneficial shareholder holding substantial interest in the lending company. Since the assessee was not a shareholder in M/s. Singhal Spintex Private Limited, the conditions for deemed dividend were not met.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be made to pay further demand and interest if challan mismatches occur, provided evidence of tax payment is produced. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify original challans and grant credit.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular was also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and that the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal found a basic controversy regarding the filing of the return of income, which needed to be resolved by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal decided that provisions for gratuity and leave encashment for book profit computation should be treated based on prior ITAT and High Court rulings. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to preliminary expenses and neon/glow signs, following High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not established a nexus between interest-bearing funds and non-interest-bearing advances. Since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, it was presumed that the advances were made from these funds.
The Tribunal held that the price of wastage cannot be equal to the price of raw material and the AO's rate was arbitrary. The disallowance of expenses was also found to be ad-hoc and without specific evidence of non-business use or leakage. Therefore, the issue of wastage sale was remanded to the AO for fresh determination of the price, and the disallowance of expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated income as there was no material to indicate undisclosed income. Regarding the gift, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support a bona fide claim, and thus the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the 1% difference added by customs was revenue neutral as it represented landing charges, which were either paid by customers or were an expense for the assessee. For un-reconciled debtors, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify if the amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confusing the commission rate and that self-made vouchers are acceptable for illiterate suppliers. The addition based on estimated gross profit was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) was beyond its scope as the claim was apparent from the return. The AO was directed to allow the deduction if it was indeed made in the original e-return.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The fact that the lender company was not carrying on business activity was not material if its funds were properly accounted for.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. Following CBDT instructions, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the family settlement, which aimed to bring harmony and avoid disputes, should be considered. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly accepted the assessee's 15% share based on documentary evidence and the principle of respecting family arrangements.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular dated 10.12.2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals, is binding on the Department. Since the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that no separate adjustment for interest on receivables is warranted, as the cost of funds blocked in the credit period is considered embedded in the sale price. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to reconsider the inclusion of certain comparable companies.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation disallowance to the AO for de novo consideration, finding it was made without proper investigation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the disallowance of subscription and membership fees, finding no evidence of business purpose.