Loading ITAT cases…
397 orders · Page 5 of 8
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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was set up since incorporation as it had acquired franchise rights and incurred expenses for searching potential franchisees. The expenses were considered allowable business expenditures, reversing the AO's disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal in view of Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, additions under section 153A cannot be made when the original assessment was already completed prior to the search. The assessment framed under section 153A was therefore held to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that salary paid to an employee who did not render services in India is not chargeable to tax in India, thus confirming the deletion of disallowance. Regarding export commission, the Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be faulted for not deducting TDS based on retrospective amendments, as the obligation to deduct tax is based on the law prevalent at the time of payment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a duly endorsed adjournment application for the date in question, and the genuineness of this application was not controverted. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the absence, and the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a duly endorsed adjournment application for the date in question, and the genuineness of this application was not controverted. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the absence, and the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a duly endorsed adjournment application for the date in question, and the genuineness of this application was not controverted. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the absence, and the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a duly endorsed adjournment application for the date in question, and the genuineness of this application was not controverted. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the absence, and the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a duly endorsed adjournment application for the date in question, and the genuineness of this application was not controverted. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the absence, and the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a duly endorsed adjournment application for the date in question, and the genuineness of this application was not controverted. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the absence, and the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed a duly endorsed adjournment application for the date in question, and the genuineness of this application was not controverted. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the absence, and the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had discharged its onus and the Revenue failed to prove the transactions were factually incorrect. The addition was deemed not legally sustainable under Section 153C.
The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal without going into the merits of the case. It held that the appeal should not have been filed given the tax effect and the binding instructions under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper investigation and relied on the original assessment order despite the matter being restored for de novo assessment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order which deleted the addition.
The Tribunal found that the chart provided by the Assessing Officer did not clearly distinguish opening balances from current year's income. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 77,200/- on account of cash was not sustainable as it was explained by the assessee's family needs and the surrendered income. The addition on account of jewellery was to be restricted after allowing a benefit of 1500 grams. The addition for undeclared business income and low drawings were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 77,200/- on account of cash was not sustainable as it was explained by the assessee's family needs and the surrendered income. The addition on account of jewellery was to be restricted after allowing a benefit of 1500 grams. The addition for undeclared business income and low drawings were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals where the tax effect is below the specified limit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to simple interest on the excess tax paid, regardless of its nature (TDS, advance tax, or self-assessment tax). The interest is payable from the date the assessee claims it until the refund is granted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on a CBDT circular stipulating that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Revenue's right to appeal on merits if the tax effect in subsequent years exceeds the limit.
The Tribunal held that while the trust's activities qualified as charitable, the violation of Section 13(1)(d) warranted taxing the income related to the violation at the maximum marginal rate, not denying exemption for the entire income. The denial of exemption was restricted to the extent of the violation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Following precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the registration applications. The Tribunal found that the objects of the trust were charitable and that the activities, including the land purchase, were not demonstrably colorable transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA for electricity generated and captively consumed. The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s reasoning regarding cost allocation, efficiency, and market rate for electricity to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the registration applications. The Tribunal found that the objects of the trust were charitable and that the activities, including the land purchase, were not demonstrably colorable transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the registration applications. The Tribunal found that the objects of the trust were charitable and that the activities, including the land purchase, were not demonstrably colorable transactions.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment purely on the basis of a DVO's report, without independent application of the AO's mind or other tangible material, is invalid. The DVO's report alone does not constitute 'information' for reopening under Section 147.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Tribunal relied on Section 268A and the CBDT circular which mandates not filing appeals below a certain tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from attending the hearings due to their medical treatment in the USA. The ex-parte decisions by the lower authorities were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from attending the hearings due to their medical treatment in the USA. The ex-parte decisions by the lower authorities were therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal due to the low tax effect, as per Section 268A and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The assessee's appeal was not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO did not provide sufficient reasons for disallowance and that the additional evidence submitted to the CIT(A) substantiated the expenses. The Tribunal agreed that the expenses were incurred for business purposes.
The tribunal held that the addition for share application money was justified due to the assessee's failure to provide confirmations. However, the disallowance of salary expenses was deleted, and the disallowance of professional charges was upheld.
The tribunal held that while the addition under Section 68 might be justified, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The tribunal noted that the gifts were received through banking channels and the donors' statements, taken without cross-examination, were insufficient to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars for penalty purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the registration applications. The Tribunal found that the objects of the trust were charitable and that the activities, including the land purchase, were not demonstrably colorable transactions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on disallowances made by the AO, especially when the disallowances themselves were debatable and had been deleted in previous years. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the registration applications. The Tribunal found that the objects of the trust were charitable and that the activities, including the land purchase, were not demonstrably colorable transactions.
The tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection, which arose from the department's appeal, was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-appearance was shown.
The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recall of the order if sufficient cause for absence was shown.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 54B exemption to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding agricultural income, allowing a partial claim. Other grounds were also addressed.
The Tribunal, following Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and various precedents, treated the appeals as unadmitted due to the non-appearance of the assessee and dismissed them in limine.
The Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and various precedents, treated the appeals as unadmitted due to the non-appearance of the assessee and dismissed them.
The Tribunal held that CBDT instructions issued under Section 268A are binding on income-tax authorities. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue requested to withdraw the appeal.