Loading ITAT cases…
527 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular is binding on the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalties were deleted, the penalties themselves could not survive. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in K.C Builders Vs ACIT.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation credible and, in the interest of justice, set aside the orders to the Assessing Officer. The assessee will be given adequate opportunity to present its case afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the claimed loss. It found that the assessee failed to reconcile the discrepancies in the stock register despite multiple opportunities, rendering the loss unverifiable.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment to examine the allowability of expenditure based on cogent materials. This decision was applied to all assessment years under appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were unsustainable as they were based on assumptions and estimations without disputing the audited books of account. The CIT(A)'s deletions were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was not served at the assessee's known address. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed, and the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it violated the CBDT circular prescribing a pecuniary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalties were deleted, the penalties themselves could not survive. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in K.C Builders Vs ACIT.
The Tribunal found the facts to be identical to a previous case (M/s Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd.) where the ITAT had set aside the matter to the AO to allow cross-examination. Therefore, the Tribunal also set aside the orders and remanded the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while an audited balance sheet adds weight, it doesn't absolve the assessee from producing supporting documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matters concerning depreciation and other disallowances back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for appeals. The objection raised by the assessee was concurred with.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted various documents to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions. Since these documents were not adequately considered by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakhs, was applicable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on this circular.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars are binding on the department and are applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed.
The Tribunal allowed the business expenses based on the principle of consistency and business expediency, citing previous years' allowances and the fact that the assessee maintained infrastructure for its profession. Depreciation was partially disallowed as the building was partly let out, and the issue was restored to the AO for proportionate allowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ledger accounts, invoices, and a partnership deed, to support the flower business and the incurred loss. The AO's rejection was based on assumptions and the fact that books of account were not rejected under Section 145(3).
The Tribunal held that the appeals by the Revenue for certain assessment years were not maintainable due to low tax effect. It further held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search and no assessment was pending. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions on account of unexplained receipts, relying on previous High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings under Section 153A can only be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to gifts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions, finding that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order after proper appraisal of evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment was haphazard and lacked proper opportunity and appreciation of evidence.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings under Section 153A can only be based on incriminating material found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to gifts.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it violated the CBDT circular on pecuniary limits, which has statutory force. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without deciding on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 15 lacs was deleted by the CIT(A) after admitting additional evidence and obtaining a remand report, the penalty imposed on that addition is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/- with retrospective effect.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. The AO was not empowered to review the applicability of Section 10BA when the reopening itself was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the description 'under installation' in the fixed asset schedule was not sufficient tangible material for reopening the assessment, especially when the AO had made specific queries on this issue during the original assessment. The reopening was considered a review of the AO's own order, which is impermissible.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment. It found that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO lacked 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment, and the notices were issued with incorrect addresses and potentially unsigned.
The Tribunal held that the wrong claim of TDS credit, where the income was not offered or assessed in the relevant AY, cannot be termed as 'the amount of tax sought to be evaded'. The assessee's explanation was considered bona fide, and all material facts were disclosed, rebutting the presumption of concealment.
The tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it violated the CBDT circular regarding the pecuniary limit for preferring appeals. The circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's dominant object is charitable and it does not carry on business for profit. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not attracted, and exemption under Section 11 is allowable. Previous High Court judgments in the assessee's own case were followed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of the CBDT circular prescribing a pecuniary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal filed by the assessee had become infructuous in view of the subsequent order passed by the AO accepting the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the grounds raised in the appeal were dismissed as unanswered.
The Tribunal restored the issue of inflated purchases back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, following a similar decision for the preceding assessment year. The issue of slump sale was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to continuous non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT at ₹10 lakhs and made it applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 10 lakhs and made it applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on this circular.
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest on the refund of prepaid taxes as per Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) erred in denying interest for the period the assessee was pursuing rectification applications, as interest is a statutory and non-discretionary right.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable to the present case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that since all facts were disclosed and the assessee had a substantial loss, there was no mala fide intention to evade tax. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment petition due to the persistent defects in the appeals and the lack of seriousness in pursuing them. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if defects are cured.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be contradictory and non-speaking, as it did not adequately explain why the current year's submissions were different from the previous year's when the facts were similar. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A could be made. This decision was based on previous ITAT and Delhi High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 10 lakhs was applicable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing departmental appeals, was applicable to the present case. The appeal was dismissed based on this circular.