Loading ITAT cases…
368 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that incentives received for setting up new units or for repayment of term loans are capital in nature. Contributions towards dam construction and molasses storage tanks were also considered allowable business expenditure.
The Tribunal found substance in the preliminary objection raised by the assessee. It held that the appeals were filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which mandates a minimum tax effect for Revenue appeals.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not record findings that the details furnished by the assessee were inaccurate or false. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found that a mere claim not accepted by the Revenue does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that incentives received for setting up new units or for repayment of term loans are capital in nature. Contributions towards dam construction and molasses storage tanks were also considered allowable business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that incentives received for setting up new units or for repayment of term loans are capital in nature. Contributions towards dam construction and molasses storage tanks were also considered allowable business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was found, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 which revised the monetary limit for appeals. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. This was based on the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, which was Rs. 10 lakh, and the tax effect in this case was less than that amount.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vi) is a charging provision and its applicability depends on specific conditions, including the recipient being an individual or HUF. Since the recipient was a trust, the provision was not applicable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee appeared to be not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the persistent defects and non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the inclusion of 'other sales' as operating income for PLI calculation. It upheld the inclusion of corporate support services income but remanded the issue of liabilities written back and foreign exchange gains to the AO/TPO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh. This circular was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal found no substance in the assessee's contention that the amount was an advance, noting the initial claim as a gift supported by a gift deed and affidavit. The Tribunal viewed the change of stand as a 'colourable device' for tax avoidance, upholding the lower authorities' decision.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals was applicable. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on a CBDT Circular revising the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh, which was applicable retrospectively. The tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 10 lakh.