Loading ITAT cases…
397 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be recomputed as no part of the interest could be disallowed if borrowed funds were not used for tax-exempt income. The matter regarding the FWP equipment expenditure was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals before the Tribunal should not be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and should have been withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction required under Section 14A(2) must be recorded by the Assessing Officer and cannot be usurped by the CIT(A), even with coterminous powers. The failure to record satisfaction by the AO renders the initiation of disallowance under Section 14A invalid.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals is binding on the Department. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000 should not be filed or pressed.
The Tribunal deleted the arm's length price adjustment on interest. For the Section 14A disallowance, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for recomputation based on specific directions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and the lack of any incriminating material unearthed during the search to justify reopening the assessment. The Tribunal found no tangible material to support the AO's belief of income escapement.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) and the lack of any incriminating material unearthed during the search to justify reopening the assessment. The Tribunal found no tangible material to support the AO's belief of income escapement.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015, appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or may be withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the assessee had made a bona fide claim and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the assessee had made a bona fide claim and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the assessee had made a bona fide claim and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/-, which the instant appeal fell below.
The Tribunal held that only peak credit can be subjected to tax, considering both cash deposits and withdrawals. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contentions without confronting the AO, violating procedural rules. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that if donors' details and genuineness of donations are established by sufficient evidence, they cannot be treated as anonymous. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for unsecured loans, as the AO seemed to have accepted the details provided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was ad-hoc and lacked specific justification. The Tribunal found that the expenses were normal operating expenses and the assessee had provided adequate financial statements and records.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The Tribunal found no specific justification from the Assessing Officer to treat a portion of the expenses as capital in nature, and that the assessee had provided details of its operating expenses.
The Tribunal held that only peak credit can be subjected to tax, considering both cash deposits and withdrawals. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contentions without confronting the AO, violating procedural rules. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal considered the CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had failed to consider the assessee's objections and submissions properly. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the DRP for a fresh consideration of the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the payment of corporate charges was for business purposes and not designed to shift profits. It also ruled that project expenses were revenue in nature and allowed depreciation. The disallowance of Section 10B deduction was set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, holding that composite rental income from building and fixtures is taxable under 'Income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not provide any reason for absence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the Rs. 1 lakh portion of the addition was factually incorrect as there was no such entry in the assessee's bank statement. For the remaining Rs. 4 lakhs loan, the assessee provided sufficient evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, which the AO failed to disprove.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the AO provided inadequate time for the assessee to furnish explanations, violating the principles of natural justice. The assessment order was deemed invalid due to the ex parte nature and insufficient opportunity given to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Department ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per Section 268A of the Income Tax Act and CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee is permitted to file fresh evidence before the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as defective and not maintainable. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous and barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that income arising from licensing film rights for a fixed period should be taxed on a time basis, similar to deferred expenditure. The AO erred in treating the entire income as accrued in the current year.
The Tribunal held that RPM is the most appropriate method for the distributor/trading segment, but for segments involving value addition or job work, a fresh adjudication is needed to determine the most appropriate method. Adjustments for the difference in statutory levies (customs duty vs. excise duty) were allowed.
The Tribunal held that RPM is the most appropriate method for the distributor/trading segment, but for segments involving value addition or job work, a fresh adjudication is needed to determine the most appropriate method. Adjustments for the difference in statutory levies (customs duty vs. excise duty) were allowed.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings initiated for one issue (sundry creditors) cannot be levied on additions made on a different basis (estimated profit). Furthermore, no penalty can be imposed when income is assessed on an estimated basis.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or claimed bogus expenditure, as the disallowance was offered out of actual expenses incurred. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was incorrect.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the housing loan interest deduction. It allowed the depreciation claim as the assessee had continuously claimed it and no valid reason for disallowance was provided.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the notices were not served at the correct address of the assessee, rendering the service invalid. Consequently, the assessment was quashed due to non-service of notice.
The Tribunal held that income arising from licensing film rights for a fixed period should be taxed on a time basis, similar to deferred expenditure. The AO erred in taxing the entire income in one year when the benefit was spread over several years.
The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015, dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not pressed. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.