Loading ITAT cases…
527 orders · Page 7 of 11
The Tribunal held that the RBI regulations do not determine the true nature of the receipt in the hands of the assessee. It found no distinguishing features from earlier years' decisions and concluded that the discounting charges were not in the nature of interest.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude 'Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd.' as a comparable due to its abnormal profits and irregularities. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed, as it was contingent on the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 mandates not filing or withdrawing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs, even for pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition as unexplained cash credit, as the discrepancy was due to a genuine typographical error in the notes to accounts, supported by auditor's certificate. The assessee was already in loss, making the excess claim not beneficial.
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 appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his mind to form an independent belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening were vague and not based on tangible material, making the reassessment proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the use of RPM for determining ALP in the trading segment. This was based on the fact that in a subsequent assessment year, the TPO himself had accepted RPM as the most appropriate method for similar transactions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard regarding the comparables selected by the authorities. Therefore, the issue of ALP adjustment was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulated monetary limits for filing appeals. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the software sales did not constitute 'Royalty' as the intellectual property rights remained with the vendor and the assessee only acquired the right to resell. It further held that training fees were ancillary to the sale of software and thus not 'Fees for technical services'.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard regarding the comparables selected by the authorities. Therefore, the issue of ALP adjustment was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for making the cash payment due to a strained family relationship and insistence by the lender. The source of funds for repayment was also established.
The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of illness to be genuine and that a sufficient opportunity to submit evidence was not granted. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the allowability of license fee expenditure was debatable. Since the assessee had disclosed all material facts and made a bona fide claim, it did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities. As the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B(d) is not applicable to interest payable to government institutions like those of the UP government. Following a coordinate bench decision, the disallowance was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. The reasons recorded by the AO did not indicate any tangible material that came into his possession after the initial processing of the return, and there was an inconsistency between the reasons for reopening and the inspector's report.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the first ground, reversing the CIT(A)'s confirmation of a 25% ad hoc disallowance of manufacturing expenses, finding it unsubstantiated. For freight expenses, the disallowance was partly allowed, restricting it to 25% of the actual missing vouchers. The addition under Section 41(1) was reversed, as the revenue failed to prove the cessation of liabilities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit additional evidence after calling for a remand report. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, as per the CBDT circular. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of characterization of income from sale of securities as business income or capital gains is covered by its own previous order and a Delhi High Court decision. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s finding was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prescribing monetary limits for appeals is binding on income tax authorities and applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be treated as un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing on 10.03.2016, despite sufficient notice. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The reasoning relied on Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, which allows for such dismissal. The Tribunal also cited decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, specifically Multiplan India Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Delhi)], and the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], as precedents for dismissing appeals for non-prosecution. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous orders and the Delhi High Court's decision. It reiterated that higher profits from an industrial undertaking do not warrant a reduction in deduction based on presumptions, and Section 80IC aims to promote industrial activity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a disclosure of Rs. 40 Lacs in an earlier assessment year which should be considered. Since the shortage in the cash book was less than this disclosure, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation report lacked justification for the 50% increase in circle rate and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for reconsideration, directing them to consult the DVO and provide cogent, evidence-based reasons for any adjustments.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of security deposits and amounts received for execution of conveyance deeds. It held that these amounts were not income as they were received for specific purposes and were refundable or utilized for the stated objectives.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, due to the complexities of the transactions and the death of the brother-in-law, the case was set aside to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus to establish the identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness of the shareholders and unsecured loan creditors. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO invoked Rule 8D without recording the necessary satisfaction regarding the assessee's claimed expenditure. The disallowance also exceeded the exempt income, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition for unaccounted sales but found the 15% profit rate arbitrary. It directed the AO to adopt the assessee's declared net profit rate of 6% for the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's revenue should be taxed under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, not as Fees for Technical Services. This was based on the nature of services provided in connection with mineral oil exploration and the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in ONGC vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reassessment were based on 'borrowed satisfaction' and lacked independent application of mind, making the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of security deposits and amounts received for execution of conveyance deeds. It held that these amounts were not income as they were received for specific purposes and were refundable or utilized for the stated objectives.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be treated as un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing on 10.03.2016, despite sufficient notice. The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The reasoning relied on Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, which allows for such dismissal. The Tribunal also cited decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, specifically Multiplan India Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Delhi)], and the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], as precedents for dismissing appeals for non-prosecution. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, stating that AS-7 is applicable to contractors, not developers. The AO failed to demonstrate how the assessee's consistently followed method distorted profits.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on the software. The assessee failed to prove the existence, ownership, and business use of the software, and the transaction lacked supporting evidence like source code, utility reports, or development life cycle documentation.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous High Court judgment which ruled that PET bottles and caps fall under heading 39.23 and not the negative list. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IC was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the binding CBDT circular. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was consequently dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, following a precedent in an identical case where the High Court upheld the deletion of penalty on voluntary surrender made to buy peace, even when books of accounts were produced.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) which had granted relief to the assessee. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and those of the Delhi High Court in similar cases with identical facts.