Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 2 of 13
The Tribunal held that the addition was made without any incriminating material found during the search in the assessee's case. The husband's statement admitting bogus gifts was not applicable to the assessee, and the AO had exceeded jurisdiction by initiating reassessment proceedings instead of completing assessment based on seized material.
The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory pre-condition for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since no such satisfaction note was produced, the proceedings under Section 153C were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 10 lac, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was admittedly below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence concerning the source of funds from the two entities, noting that the assessee had a reasonable belief that proving the 'source of source' was not mandatory. The matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. This was because the addition on which the penalty was based had already been deleted by the Tribunal, and the assessee had disclosed all facts to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing expenditure under Section 14A without proper evidence or analysis. The disallowance was made mechanically by applying Rule 8D without establishing a nexus between expenditure and exempt income.
The Tribunal held that claiming expenses which are later re-characterized as capital in nature by the Assessing Officer does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is considered a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the AO had misinterpreted the assessee's statement of affairs. Regarding accommodation entries, the Tribunal noted the assessee's retraction of the statement and lack of corroborative evidence found during the assessee's survey.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the AO had misinterpreted the assessee's statement of affairs. Regarding accommodation entries, the Tribunal noted the assessee's retraction of the statement and lack of corroborative evidence found during the assessee's survey.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to subcontractors for erection, testing, and commissioning of plant and machinery were in the nature of work contracts under Section 194C, not technical services under Section 194J. The Tribunal also noted that the subcontractors had already offered the income to tax.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to subcontractors for erection, testing, and commissioning of plant and machinery were in the nature of work contracts under Section 194C, not technical services under Section 194J. The Tribunal also noted that the subcontractors had already offered the income to tax.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the assessee society was entitled to exemption under Section 11 and that the salary payments did not violate Section 13(1)(c)(ii).
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. F. No. 279/ Misc.142/207 ITJ(Pt) dated 10th December, 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Appellate Tribunal should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to subcontractors for erection, testing, and commissioning of plant and machinery were in the nature of work contracts under Section 194C, not technical services under Section 194J. The Tribunal also noted that the subcontractors had already offered the income to tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed barred by limitation as there was no valid extension granted for the special audit report. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular was also noted to apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding interest disallowance, finding sufficient funds and commercial expediency. For telephone expenses, it restricted the disallowance to 1/10th. Regarding Section 50C, it directed the AO to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer as per Section 50C(2)(a).
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the AO did not provide necessary documents and a fair opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the assessment was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was not maintainable in view of the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the write-off of assets amounting to Rs.57,72,443/-, claimed as survey expenses, was not a double deduction. The Tribunal was convinced with the assessee's accounting entries and calculation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. It found that the assessee society was entitled to exemption under Section 11 and that the salary payments did not violate Section 13(1)(c)(ii).
The Tribunal held that the payment to M/s A.B. Hotels Ltd. was a share of revenue under a joint venture for brand promotion and not for services rendered, thus not constituting royalty. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered the assessee's submissions regarding re-establishment of business after fire damage under Section 33B. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that it was not clear to which address the AO sent the Section 143(2) notice and whether it was duly served before the due date. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the principal amount in the HSBC account was not taxable due to the assessee's non-resident status and lack of evidence of income accrued in India, interest on such amounts was also not taxable. The addition on account of non-utilization of capital gains was deleted as the total expenditure on a new property exceeded the capital gains.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular dated 10th December 2015 for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that since the substantial questions of law regarding the transfer pricing adjustment were admitted by the High Court, the issue was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction. The jurisdiction was determined by the territorial area where the assessee filed the return, and a transfer without a Section 127 order was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing necessary details like identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Assessing Officer had not controverted these facts despite independent inquiries.
The Tribunal held that since the principal amount in the HSBC account was not taxable due to the assessee's non-resident status and lack of evidence of income accrued in India, interest on such amounts was also not taxable. The addition on account of non-utilization of capital gains was deleted as the total expenditure on a new property exceeded the capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was covered by the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which has retrospective effect, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable. The Revenue could not controvert this fact.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to establish that the expenses were for acquiring technical know-how, a prerequisite for invoking Section 35AB. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) himself noted the expenses were for consultancy services, not technical know-how acquisition.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee lost the case in civil court and the entire liability was eventually settled and allowed by the AO in subsequent years, the expenditure should be allowed in the year it was incurred. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search operation. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The assessee had provided extensive details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, thereby discharging its onus.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the total exempt income, following a Delhi High Court ruling. Consequently, the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to provident fund and prior period expenses.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to establish that the expenses were for acquiring technical know-how, a prerequisite for invoking Section 35AB. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) himself noted the expenses were for consultancy services, not technical know-how acquisition.
The Tribunal held that since the substantial questions of law regarding the transfer pricing adjustment were admitted by the High Court, the issue was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.