Loading ITAT cases…
527 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was validly assumed by the AO, the notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 269T were not attracted as the transactions were mere book entries and adjustment entries as per the collaboration agreement, not actual acceptance or repayment of loans or deposits of money. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, and following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal rejected the department's request for adjournment and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. This was based on the CBDT circular mandating withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of freight charges being reimbursement expenses was not made before lower authorities, making the cited High Court judgment irrelevant. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding payments to non-resident players, finding it taxable under Section 115BBA.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Department should not have filed the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to be done in light of the restored registration u/s 12AA, allowing the Assessing Officer to examine claims for exemption.
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 accommodation entries were admitted and payment by cheque does not validate the transaction. The CIT(A) had rightly restricted the addition to 20% of the bogus purchases.
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 held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a reappraisal of existing material and lacked any new tangible material. Therefore, the notice for reopening under Section 147 and the subsequent notice under Section 148 were quashed as not being in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the FDR was a pre-requisite for a guarantee from the Haryana State Pollution Control Board for the construction of a factory. Therefore, it was linked to capital expenditure and not surplus funds generating revenue income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Revenue should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal, following established precedents regarding non-prosecution, decided to dismiss the appeal. The dismissal is in limine, meaning it is a preliminary dismissal without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection without going into the merits. This was based on a CBDT circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the AO's reliance on a previous year's assessment was incorrect as that assessment was quashed on jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal also found that the assessee's declared net profit of 0.05% was reasonable given its audited books and prior years' profit margins.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A, as such statements lack evidentiary value. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT guidelines advising against obtaining confessions during surveys.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limini.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal restored the depreciation claim to the AO for verification of purchase invoices. For leave encashment and bonus, the matters were remanded to the AO to examine payments made up to the return filing due date. The VAT disallowance was upheld, while the addition for unconfirmed sundry creditors was allowed.
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 procedural ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The complete money trail, though in cash, was corroborated by adequate evidence, and transactions in cash are not inherently suspicious unless prohibited by law.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement expenses were incurred in the normal course of business for sales promotion and were recurring in nature. It found no enduring benefit that would make them capital expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c), applying the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, all impugned penalty orders were considered barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limini.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served on the assessee at its correct address and therefore the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 was also set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The commission paid to the director was found to be allowable as revenue expenditure, and the disallowance under Section 14A and depreciation were also deleted based on prior judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal directed the Department to withdraw or not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the creditworthiness of the donor by providing evidence of her financial status and her husband's significant business interests in Nepal. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of expenses claimed as part of the cost of land, finding the assessee's reliance on case law misplaced. For development expenses, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not record any findings regarding expenses for exempt income, and the assessee's calculation of NIL average investment was questionable. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that provision for bad and doubtful debts is to be added back to book profit under Section 115JB(2) as it represents a diminution in asset value. The issue of interest income classification was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order under Section 154 was unsustainable as it involved debatable issues and required ascertainment of new facts regarding delays. The CIT(A) also erred by not deciding the grounds raised and instead giving a fresh direction to verify facts, which is beyond the scope of rectification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not properly consider the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding services rendered outside India. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 80-O.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 153C was invalid as no seized material belonged to the assessee, and their assessment for the relevant year was already concluded. Consequently, the assessment made under Section 153C was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular, issued under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, is binding on the revenue authorities. Therefore, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The commission paid to the director was found to be allowable as revenue expenditure, and the disallowance under Section 14A and depreciation were also deleted based on prior judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the omission was a bona fide clerical mistake, not an attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The assessee had provided all necessary information during assessment.
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 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.