Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 5 of 13
The Tribunal allowed the revenue to withdraw its appeals based on a CBDT circular. The circular stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or pressed.
The Tribunal held that while the addition to income was confirmed on probability, it did not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee's explanation for the GP rate was not controverted by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69 was incorrect because the investment was recorded in the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee had demonstrated that the cash advance was out of balances available in the books.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal as per CBDT circulars and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, given the low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a retracted surrender statement, without corroborating material or evidence, cannot be sustained. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a retracted surrender statement, without corroborating material or evidence, cannot be sustained. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of cash credits to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the transactions. Regarding the TDS disallowance, the Tribunal held that if the payees have offered the income and paid taxes, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not apply, following a precedent.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT, making the appeals not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not press their cross-objection.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's act of filing a revised return upon discovering an error demonstrated a lack of intent to furnish inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied was inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the prescribed limit. Following the CBDT circular, the Tribunal directed the withdrawal or non-pressing of such appeals.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 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 Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT, making the appeals not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's act of filing a revised return upon discovering an error demonstrated a lack of intent to furnish inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied was inappropriate.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars, including the one revising the monetary limit to Rs. 10,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal, are binding on income-tax authorities and apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the department ought not to have filed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding instructions from the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding instructions from the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals and instructs the department to withdraw or not press appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs. The request for adjournment was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had produced all necessary details before the authorities for the cash credit additions. It also found that the computation of accounts was available and the invocation of Section 44AF was not a new claim. Therefore, the additions made by the CIT(A) were not sustained.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issue back to the TPO for a fresh decision, citing violation of natural justice and lack of opportunity for the TPO to respond. However, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to depreciation on temporary structures and computer peripherals, relying on previous ITAT and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that eClerx Services Ltd. was not a suitable comparable due to abnormal financial results from mergers/demergers and supernormal profits. The issue of Cosmic Global Ltd. was restored to the TPO for fresh determination, and C G Vok Software was ordered to be included as a comparable.
The Tribunal held that TSR Darashaw Ltd. cannot be taken as a comparable as a significant portion of its income is from share registry services, indicating a different functional profile. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of Global Procurement Consulting Limited as a comparable due to the lack of segmental data for its support services.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, held that the JV was not an AOP and therefore, the interest on refund should not be assessed in the hands of the JV. The income should be taxed in the hands of the joint venture partners.
The Tribunal allowed the losses claimed from M/s Garg Enterprises and M/s Chandulal Mohan Lal, finding that the assessee had demonstrated the genuineness of these transactions. The Tribunal also allowed the losses from M/s Sita Ram Sher Singh and M/s Mahalaxmi Cotton P.Ltd., despite some deficiencies, stating they were not sufficient to disallow the claim.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issue back to the TPO for a fresh decision, citing violation of natural justice and lack of opportunity for the TPO to respond. However, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to depreciation on temporary structures and computer peripherals, relying on previous ITAT and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee had offered bona fide explanations for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2.21 Crores of unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing sufficient documentation and that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries. Consequently, the related interest disallowance was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned was inextricably linked with the setting up of the power plant and was not from surplus funds. Therefore, it should be capitalized to reduce the cost of construction, not treated as taxable income.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, held that the JV was not an AOP and therefore, the interest on refund should not be assessed in the hands of the JV. The income should be taxed in the hands of the joint venture partners.
The Tribunal held that setting up of business is distinct from commencement, and expenses incurred after setting up are revenue expenditure. Mere making of a claim not accepted by the AO does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal rejected the department's request for adjournment and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the ground that the tax effect did not exceed the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Consequently, grounds related to the attribution of business profits to the PE were not adjudicated. The issue of taxability of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) was set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the 'approval' obtained from the Additional Commissioner was not a valid 'satisfaction' as required by Section 151(2) of the Act, as it was obtained after the notice was issued and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the orders of the TPO and DRP did not discuss the issues in sufficient detail with proper reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the TPO/AO to reconsider the transfer pricing and working capital adjustments.
The Tribunal held that the nature of services provided by the assessee was business support services, not IT-enabled services. Regarding leasehold improvements, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that the expenditure was capital in nature, entitling the assessee to depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the 'approval' obtained from the Additional Commissioner was not a valid 'satisfaction' as required by Section 151(2) of the Act, as it was obtained after the notice was issued and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the 'approval' obtained from the Additional Commissioner was not a valid 'satisfaction' as required by Section 151(2) of the Act, as it was obtained after the notice was issued and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the 'approval' obtained from the Additional Commissioner was not a valid 'satisfaction' as required by Section 151(2) of the Act, as it was obtained after the notice was issued and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by the CBDT Circular which mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on this ground without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the 'approval' obtained from the Additional Commissioner was not a valid 'satisfaction' as required by Section 151(2) of the Act, as it was obtained after the notice was issued and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.