Loading ITAT cases…
527 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the Rs. 10 lakhs limit specified by the CBDT circular. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made additions on grounds not considered by the AO, exceeding his jurisdiction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was cancelled for lack of jurisdiction. The assessee's second appeal was dismissed as infructuous, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly concluded that the funds transferred were not deemed dividend as they were either repayments of loans given by the assessee to Abhinav Kumar Mittal or were out of Abhinav Kumar Mittal's own mixed funds, not specifically from M/s. A.K. Services Private Limited.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the Section 10A deduction, following previous tribunal decisions. For the bad debts claim, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO to verify if the acquired entity had offered the amount as income.
The Tribunal held that a loose paper with names and figures, without corroborative evidence or inquiry into the identity of the individuals, cannot be the sole basis for making an addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The AO failed to establish a link between the assessee and the investments mentioned on the paper.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
In the first appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds as infructuous because the CIT(A) had quashed the reopening of assessment, and this legal ground was not challenged by the Revenue. In the second appeal, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly adjudicated the issues, and therefore, restored the case to the AO for de novo adjudication.
In the first appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds as infructuous because the CIT(A) had quashed the reopening of assessment, and this legal ground was not challenged by the Revenue. In the second appeal, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly adjudicated the issues, and therefore, restored the case to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The cross-objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue because the tax effect involved was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made additions on grounds not considered by the AO, exceeding his jurisdiction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was cancelled for lack of jurisdiction. The assessee's second appeal was dismissed as infructuous, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Income-tax Act, without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of entertainment and travelling expenses to 20%. It found that while the AO's disallowance of the entire amount was not justified, the involvement of a personal element in such expenses could not be ruled out.
The tribunal held that the assessee's omission to disclose capital gains was due to a bonafide belief of exemption under Section 10(38), not a deliberate attempt to conceal income. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal, considering the CBDT circular and the submission of the Ld. DR, dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not pressed. The dismissal was clarified not to hold as precedent.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as it was based on a reappraisal of the same facts available during the original assessment, without any tangible new material. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal, considering the CBDT circular and the submission of the Ld. DR, dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not pressed. The dismissal was clarified not to hold as precedent.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot deem a deductor as an assessee in default unless it is first established that the deductee/payee has also failed to pay the tax directly. This failure is a foundational and jurisdictional fact. Since the AO did not ascertain this fact before initiating proceedings, the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from attending hearings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing the Section 10A deduction, following previous tribunal decisions. For the bad debts claim, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO to verify if the acquired entity had offered the amount as income.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of reopening proceedings under Section 147 was invalid and void-ab-initio, as there was no tangible material to suggest escapement of income. Consequently, the reassessment framed was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid because it was initiated more than four years after the relevant assessment year, and the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 147 were not met. Specifically, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided necessary details, received funds through banking channels, and allotted shares as per ROC filings. The AO had not verified the details furnished by the assessee and violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made additions on grounds not considered by the AO, exceeding his jurisdiction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was cancelled for lack of jurisdiction. The assessee's second appeal was dismissed as infructuous, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs, as per the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for future years with higher tax effects.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has a business connection in India and a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE). However, it dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding service PE and dependent agent PE. The Tribunal also held that reimbursements of third-party costs were not taxable, but allocated costs were taxable as royalty.
The Tribunal held that Section 147 cannot be used as a substitute for extending the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). It found that the reasons recorded did not demonstrate any escapement of income, which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 148.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the income from sale and purchase of shares and mutual funds should be treated as capital gains, not business income. It also upheld the disallowance of portfolio management fees as an expense against capital gains, directing them to be added back.
The ITAT noted that the assessee sought to rely on fresh evidence before the CIT(A) but did not file a proper application under Rule 46A explaining the delay. Considering the interests of substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file.
The ITAT noted that the assessee sought to rely on fresh evidence before the CIT(A) but did not file a proper application under Rule 46A explaining the delay. Considering the interests of substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lacs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. This circular is binding on the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that correct computation of short deduction requires updated deductee PANs. The AO was directed to coordinate at the proper level to determine the correct liability.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below ₹10 lakhs should not be preferred. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate commercial expediency for the interest-free advances and did not provide sufficient evidence. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below ₹10 lakhs should not be preferred. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed not maintainable.