Loading ITAT cases…
518 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application and dismissed the appeal in limini. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, which mandate withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the use of the project completion method of accounting. It also ruled that open-to-sky balconies should be excluded when calculating built-up area for Section 80IB(10) deductions.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of the principal amount of a term loan, which was not claimed as an expenditure or trading liability, does not constitute income under Section 41(1) or Section 28(iv). The decision in CIT vs. Tosha International Ltd. was deemed applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit, related to his wife's serious medical condition and the need to keep funds readily available, was justified. The AO failed to provide any incriminating evidence to disprove the assessee's contention.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify the grounds for penalty, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty could not be imposed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect involved was below the Rs. 10 lakhs limit specified by the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for subsequent years with a higher tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was illegal and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal reasoned that an order cannot be termed erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If the AO makes an assessment in accordance with law, the CIT cannot brand it as erroneous simply because they believe it should have been written more elaborately or because they have a different opinion. The Tribunal cited judicial pronouncements, including *CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.* and *CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.*, emphasizing the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry'. The judgment in *Sunbeam Auto Ltd.* stated that if there was any inquiry, even if inadequate, it would not give occasion for the CIT to pass orders under Section 263, as it would only be in cases of 'lack of inquiry' that such a course would be open. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted an inquiry into the share capital, even if it was not extensively discussed in the assessment order. The CIT cannot substitute their judgment for that of the AO unless the order is demonstrably erroneous. Since the AO had considered and examined the issue of share capital, the CIT could not set aside the order without recording a contrary finding. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 263 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the use of the project completion method of accounting. It also ruled that open-to-sky balconies should be excluded when calculating built-up area for Section 80IB(10) deductions.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute a reasonable cause for the delay. They noted that the Revenue had filed its appeal much earlier and the assessee was aware of the proceedings. Therefore, the delay was considered a case of negligence.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, held that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 Lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that merely earning higher profits does not justify reducing a deduction claim. Previous ITAT orders and a High Court decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years were followed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing at both the assessment and appellate stages. Consequently, the case was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and heard the appeal. It found that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to confront the statement of Shri S.K. Jain or the material seized from him, which was used to make the addition. Without this evidence, the AO lacked material to support the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as it was not passed within the time stipulated under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The ITAT allowed the claim for professional assistance expenses from the husband, finding it reasonable given his background and similar claims allowed in prior years. The tribunal also allowed depreciation on both cars, correcting calculation errors and accepting the need for a standby car. A partial disallowance was made for personal use of cars.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the AO to treat diamond jewellery in carats/weight as explained to the extent declared in the earlier valuation report, following precedents regarding remodelling of jewellery.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to confront the statement of Shri S.K. Jain or the material seized from him, which was used to make the addition. Without this evidence, the AO lacked material to support the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty order was passed ex-parte and the AO's calculation of tax liability might be incorrect. Considering the totality of facts, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the addition sustained was on an estimated basis and the gold jewellery in which diamonds were studded was accepted as received on marriage/occasions, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that provisions for leave encashment, based on actuarial valuation, are ascertained liabilities and not to be added back for book profit computation. Regarding international transactions, the Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A), following its own prior decisions where similar transactions were found to be at arm's length.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat diamond jewellery in carats/weight as explained to the extent declared in the earlier valuation report, following the principle that jewellery is often remodelled.
The Tribunal held that since the addition sustained was on an estimated basis and the gold jewellery in which diamonds were studded was accepted as received on marriage/occasions, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of an affidavit from the AE's director. It set aside the orders for both assessment years and restored the matters to the AO/TPO to decide afresh after considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to pay interest under Section 234B, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in GE Packaged Power Inc. The payer has the primary obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an inquiry and considered the assessee's claim, even making a partial disallowance. The CIT's order under Section 263 was deemed illegal as it was based on a difference of opinion rather than a finding that the AO's view was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowance. This was because the assessee had provided all bills and vouchers during remand proceedings, and the Assessing Officer failed to point out any specific deficiencies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit, related to his wife's serious medical condition and the need to keep funds readily available, was justified. The AO failed to provide any incriminating evidence to disprove the assessee's contention.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions were based on existing material, not on evidence unearthed during the search.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions were based on existing material, not on evidence unearthed during the search.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance should have been considered under Section 14A, which the Assessing Officer had not applied. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination under Section 14A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding no evidence of suppressed sale consideration beyond what was recorded in the books. The cross-objection by the assessee regarding the validity of proceedings under Section 153A was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, citing a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal. The circular directed the Department not to press appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was factually incorrect about the AO seeking details after the last hearing date. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence filed.
The Tribunal held that the commission income did not accrue or arise in India as the services were rendered outside India and there was no business connection in India. Therefore, TDS was not required to be deducted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO regarding rental income but set aside the enhancement made by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also dealt with other grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting the assessee's comparables without proper justification and in applying the TNMM method. The Tribunal also noted that the first year of operation often involves initial losses due to business development.
The tribunal held that the stock shortage indicated sales outside the books, but the profit addition should be at the net profit rate (9%) instead of the gross profit rate (32.08%). The cash payments to M/s Himanshu Trading Company were found to comply with Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, and the Rs. 19,600 unexplained expense was upheld.
The Tribunal, considering the repeated absence of the assessee and the lack of interest shown in pursuing the appeal, decided to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal cited various High Court and Supreme Court judgments supporting dismissal for non-prosecution.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no serious objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the ITO, Ward 2(1), New Delhi had no jurisdiction over the assessee's case as the company's registered office and return filing jurisdiction were in Noida. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Delhi officer was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(10)(i) as they were transferred employees who retained benefits equivalent to State Government employees. The Tribunal noted that the department itself had allowed similar exemptions to other employees in the past, citing the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were eligible for exemption under Section 10(10)(i) as they were transferred employees who retained benefits equivalent to State Government employees. The Tribunal noted that the department itself had allowed similar exemptions to other employees in the past, citing the principle of consistency.