Loading ITAT cases…
527 orders · Page 8 of 11
The Tribunal held that separate appeals against orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not required. For tips paid to employees, the assessee was relieved of liability under Section 201(1) due to bona fide belief but held liable for interest under Section 201(1A).
The CIT(A) directed the AO to assess the income as capital gains, noting that the assessee consistently treated shares as investments in its books and utilized own funds. The Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on CBDT Circular No. 6/2016 which allows assessees to treat shares held for over 12 months as capital assets if consistently followed.
The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Divya Ahuja were correctly taxed under Section 194C. Payments to M/s Glow Show Stage Events required TDS under Section 194J, but the assessee's liability under Section 201(1) was waived if the payee included the income in their return. Tips to employees were held to be salary, requiring TDS under Section 192, with liability under Section 201(1) waived due to bona fide belief.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations and supporting documents regarding the additions from the three creditors needed thorough examination. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circular. Consequently, the department's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection, which supported the lower authority's order, did not survive for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of common expenses incurred on a cost-to-cost basis to group companies does not constitute 'work' under Section 194C, thus no TDS was required. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that it was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed based on a revised return and the declared income was accepted, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars to justify the penalty. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions for the assessee's cases for other assessment years. It held that POS machines qualify for 60% depreciation, thus approving the CIT(A)'s action.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals, directing withdrawal or non-pressing of such cases.
The Tribunal held that separate appeals against orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not required. For tips paid to employees, the assessee was relieved of liability under Section 201(1) due to bona fide belief but held liable for interest under Section 201(1A).
The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Divya Ahuja were correctly taxed under Section 194C. Payments to M/s Glow Show Stage Events required TDS under Section 194J, but the assessee's liability under Section 201(1) was waived if the payee included the income in their return. Tips to employees were held to be salary, requiring TDS under Section 192, with liability under Section 201(1) waived due to bona fide belief.
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 preliminary ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Tribunal noted that if there was a mistake in calculation or an exception applied, the Revenue could file a miscellaneous application.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found the change in accounting method to be bonafide and in line with accounting standards. The provision for license purchase was considered a crystallized liability, and the commission payment was based on a long-standing agreement and not a contingent liability.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, noting that the distinction between transactions with associated enterprises and third parties was not properly analyzed. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The instructions in the CBDT circular are binding on income tax authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the MAP conclusion was not available to the CIT(A) when the order was passed. It relied on Rule 44H of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, regarding giving effect to MAP resolutions. Since the exact date of receipt of the MAP resolution by the authorities was unclear, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the MAP conclusion was not available to the CIT(A) when the order was passed. It relied on Rule 44H of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, regarding giving effect to MAP resolutions. Since the exact date of receipt of the MAP resolution by the authorities was unclear, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that separate appeals against orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) are not required. For tips paid to employees, the assessee was relieved of liability under Section 201(1) due to bona fide belief but held liable for interest under Section 201(1A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had incurred significant expenses and appointed senior executives, indicating the business was set up even though RBI registration was in the subsequent financial year. Expenses incurred after setting up the business are deductible.
The Tribunal held that payments to M/s Divya Ahuja were correctly taxed under Section 194C. Payments to M/s Glow Show Stage Events required TDS under Section 194J, but the assessee's liability under Section 201(1) was waived if the payee included the income in their return. Tips to employees were held to be salary, requiring TDS under Section 192, with liability under Section 201(1) waived due to bona fide belief.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was without jurisdiction as it covered issues not mentioned in the show cause notice. On merits, the Tribunal found that the tax credit for deemed dividend tax was allowable, and the addition of undistributed profits was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings and issued the notice under Section 147/148 in a casual and mechanical manner without application of mind. There was no valid basis for the AO to believe that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 80G should be granted. This was based on the subsequent assessment order which confirmed the assessee's charitable activities during the relevant period, negating the ground for rejection.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the profits from share transactions should be treated as short-term capital gains. The CIT(A) considered the assessee's history of investments, the source of funds (advance for land sale), and the maintenance of separate accounts for speculative income.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this appeal was admittedly below the limit, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the re-opening of assessment under section 147. However, due to contradictory assertions regarding the evidence for cash credits, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination under section 68.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 2.5 lakh transaction was a purchase/sale of furniture and not a loan repayment, thus Section 269T was not attracted. For the Rs. 49 lakh transaction, it was found that there was no outstanding loan from the mentioned party, and therefore, no violation of Section 269T occurred.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to receive notice of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the profit from share sales should be treated as capital gains based on the long holding period and limited number of transactions. The disallowance under Section 14A was also confirmed as per the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal rejected the department's request for adjournment. Citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs, the Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed.
The Tribunal held that the entire bank deposits should be considered as business receipts. However, it directed the AO to apply an 8% profit rate as per Section 44AD, as the AO had rejected the assessee's original sales figures but accepted the profit rate from the same estimated basis.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's addition on GP rate was arbitrary and that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the remand report which did not contain adverse observations regarding the assessee's books.
The ITAT noted that certain documents were not filed before the lower authorities. Following the principle of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the issue to the AO for verification of these documents and reconsideration of the addition.