Loading ITAT cases…
397 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on revenue authorities. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates not filing appeals below a certain tax effect, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The Tribunal found that the subscription fees were a cost-to-cost recharge and the equipment was purchased at cost, supported by cost certificates and customs valuation.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, issued under Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law, when voluntarily disclosed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to attract penalty. The assessee's bona fide belief was not rebutted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of entire purchase value was not legally correct, especially when sales and stock register were not doubted. The Tribunal noted that the statement from the proprietor of M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises was later retracted and that the assessee's transactions were through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to ITAT at Rs. 10 lac, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was admittedly below Rs. 10 lac, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider only the profit element for computing adjusted profits under Section 80HHC, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The reopening of assessment was partly disallowed on one ground and partly allowed on another.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, agreeing that Rule 8D was not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year 2007-08. However, the issue of capitalization of design and consultancy charges was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider only the profit element for computing adjusted profits under Section 80HHC, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The reopening of assessment was partly disallowed on one ground and partly allowed on another.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider only the profit element for computing adjusted profits under Section 80HHC, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The reopening of assessment was partly disallowed on one ground and partly allowed on another.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider only the profit element for computing adjusted profits under Section 80HHC, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The reopening of assessment was partly disallowed on one ground and partly allowed on another.
The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Regarding the development fees, the Tribunal followed the consistent findings of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for preceding years and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which upheld the assessee's entitlement to collect development fees. For the depreciation claim, the Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble High Court's decision in the assessee's own case and the decision in DIT vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society, dismissing the Revenue's ground. On the issue of exemption under Sections 11 and 12, the Tribunal noted that the assessee society is engaged in running a school, and its aims and objects clearly fall under 'education' as a charitable purpose defined in Section 2(15). The Tribunal held that the assessee is a genuine charitable organization eligible for exemption, and the proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing exemption and deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were completed prior to the search, no additions could be made under section 153A. The addition was deleted by respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets even if not actively used in the relevant assessment year, provided they were used in earlier years and not discarded. The income from incidental trading activities was also considered business income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of commission, finding that the assessee had provided an affidavit stating no such payments were made for exports to Iraq and that such payments were made in the normal course of business. The issue of Section 80IC deduction was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the software purchases were trading activities and not capital expenses. It also agreed that the provision for sale and maintenance of software represented unexecuted AMC income, correctly accounted for under the mercantile system and AS-9.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including party-wise details, invoices, and correspondence, to prove the genuineness of the bad debts and that they were offered as income in earlier years. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for advertisement and business promotion expenses, finding them to be legitimate business expenses. However, the addition under Section 68 was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication due to a cryptic order by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that citing the wrong section does not invalidate the claim if the intent and conditions for the correct section are met. They found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the conditions for Section 10A and the AO had not specified which conditions were not met.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to ESOP expenses, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. For Section 14A, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-computation, directing consideration of only those investments yielding tax-free income as per Rule 8D(2)(iii).
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect in this appeal was less than the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any fresh investments yielding tax-free income during the year, and the existing investments were carried forward from previous years. The Tribunal set aside the issue for re-computation of disallowance, requiring the assessee to prove the nexus between business income and administrative expenses.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recalling the order if sufficient cause for absence was shown.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the revenue. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal, respectfully following the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2011) 14 Taxmann.com 1 (Mum.). The Special Bench held that the loss arising on account of reduction in share capital cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Act and is not allowable as capital loss. Such loss can at best be described as notional loss, and no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the cancellation of shares did not amount to a transfer under Section 2(47) and the capital loss claim was not allowable. The cross-objection filed by the assessee challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 was dismissed, with the Tribunal agreeing with the CIT(A) that the AO had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A(2) and (3) were workable only from the date of introduction of Rule 8D (March 24, 2008), which was applicable from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards. For the Assessment Year 2007-08, the method of apportionment of expenditure was the correct approach.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for indexation benefits and deduction under Section 54 of the Act. The matter was set aside for de novo consideration by the Assessing Officer to correctly compute the capital gains.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the AO's estimation was arbitrary and lacked sufficient evidence. The CIT(A) had concluded that the payments made by the assessee were on behalf of another company and that the purchases from that company were treated as genuine in its own assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts by the Assessing Officer was not proper as proper reasons were not assigned. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had not considered all the relevant invoices and bills.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed depreciation and interest expenses on the asset for which the loan was taken. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider the implications of the prior period adjustment and the expenses already claimed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for two of the lenders. However, for the third lender (mother), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should be given an opportunity to examine the details and evidence furnished by the assessee for the first time before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153A are not valid if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessment proceedings were not pending on the date of the search. Following a coordinate bench's decision and jurisdictional High Court's ruling, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153A are not valid if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessment proceedings were not pending on the date of the search. Following a coordinate bench's decision and jurisdictional High Court's ruling, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153A are not valid if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessment proceedings were not pending on the date of the search. Following a coordinate bench's decision and jurisdictional High Court's ruling, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153A are not valid if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessment proceedings were not pending on the date of the search. Following a coordinate bench's decision and jurisdictional High Court's ruling, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153A are not valid if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessment proceedings were not pending on the date of the search. Following a coordinate bench's decision and jurisdictional High Court's ruling, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153A are not valid if no incriminating material is found during the search and the original assessment proceedings were not pending on the date of the search. Following a coordinate bench's decision and jurisdictional High Court's ruling, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that the income arising from the sale of shares held as investments should be treated as capital gain, not business income. The Memorandum of Association's object clause alone is insufficient to classify investment gains as business income.
The Tribunal held that since the sale of the item purchased for Rs. 2,70,000 was accepted by the revenue, the disallowance of the purchase amount solely on the basis of a missing original voucher was unjustified. The Tribunal reasoned that a sale cannot occur without a purchase in a trading business.
The Tribunal found it necessary to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the assessee. To impart substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) provided a detailed and well-reasoned order in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,38,32,000. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.