Loading ITAT cases…
518 orders · Page 5 of 11
The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as un-admitted.
The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to treat all share transactions as business income, especially considering past treatment of similar gains as capital gains. The Tribunal also ruled that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08, upholding the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on the basis of which the penalty was levied has been deleted in the quantum proceedings by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty order becomes infructuous. Therefore, the penalty cannot survive.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting it was covered by a CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting it was covered by a CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh investigation. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had stopped further investigation due to the assessee's surrender and directed a proper inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a statutory authority mandated for public utility services, could not be treated as a commercial entity. Earning surplus for self-sustenance does not imply profit motive, and its activities align with public utility as per Section 2(15) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the receipts were reimbursements and not income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision with identical facts.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, was applicable. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. It directed the TPO to reconsider certain comparables for transfer pricing adjustments after verifying segmental data. However, it upheld the AO/DRP's decision regarding the apportionment of expenses to STP units, finding it correctly done.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on gross profit as the AO did not reject the books of account. Regarding capital gains, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s recomputation based on circle rates and the absence of specific grounds from the department challenging the method of apportionment.
The Tribunal held that the bad debt deduction was allowable as it was written off in the books and the appellate authorities have the power to consider such claims. For the expenses, since details were not readily available, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance of diesel expenses, acknowledging potential non-business use. However, it overturned the disallowance of legal charges for property valuation, deeming it a business expense related to stock-in-trade, but remanded the matter for verification of invoices.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules was not applicable for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, as it was introduced later. The AO's basis for disallowance was therefore incorrect. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee based on the ratio of dividend income to total income.
The Tribunal held that once purchases are accepted as bona fide, trade creditors arising from such purchases cannot be treated as bogus and added under Section 68. The assessee had provided ledger accounts and purchase bills for major creditors.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance of diesel expenses, acknowledging potential non-business use. However, it overturned the disallowance of legal charges for property valuation, deeming it a business expense related to stock-in-trade, but remanded the matter for verification of invoices.
The Tribunal held that the advances were given for the purpose of business and that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate the utilization of borrowed funds. Applying the principle that interest-free funds are presumed to be used for interest-free advances, the Tribunal found no basis for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude jewellery found in the son and daughter-in-law's possession, as they had independent sources of income. It also affirmed the application of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 to consider a certain quantity of jewellery as explained, following the predominant view of various High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made detailed inquiries into the principle of mutuality and consciously taken a view. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. Since the additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were already deleted by a previous ITAT order, no penalty could be sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude jewellery found in the son and daughter-in-law's possession, as they had independent sources of income. It also affirmed the application of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 to consider a certain quantity of jewellery as explained, following the predominant view of various High Courts.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules was not applicable for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, as it was introduced later. The AO's basis for disallowance was therefore incorrect. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee based on the ratio of dividend income to total income.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was bad in law as the AO had not applied his mind and merely acted on the tax evasion petition without independent satisfaction. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 143(3)/147 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the Section 14A disallowance, stating no exempt income was earned. For Section 40(a)(ia), the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, requiring the assessee to provide evidence of tax payment by payees. The disallowance of Section 80IC deduction was also set aside, with the Tribunal finding the AO's rejection of expense allocation arbitrary and inconsistent with previous years.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed under Section 144 without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the revision under section 263 was not valid as the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanations. The assessment order was not erroneous merely because the Principal CIT had a different opinion or the inquiry was not elaborate.
The Tribunal held that the exchange of a plot of land constitutes a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, making the loss a capital loss. It also held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable as an intangible asset, following High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory after a return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148, for the AO to assume jurisdiction for assessment. Since no such notice was issued, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The instructions are applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that grants received from governments and contributions received directly into various funds are in the nature of voluntary contributions under Section 12(1). The AO is directed to consider these as income and expenditure incurred from them as application of income under Section 11.
The ITAT held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to deal with the assessee's preliminary objections regarding the reopening of assessment. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO to decide these objections before proceeding with the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from submitting her case and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication and by incorrectly rejecting additional evidence. Therefore, the case should be restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the six preceding assessment years for Section 153C are to be reckoned from the date of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, not the date of the search. Therefore, the assessment year in question was outside the permissible period.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's (Appeals) decision, finding that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the existence and operation of the unit. The AO's doubts were not substantiated by positive discrepancies in the assessee's records or independent inquiry.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the source of the cash deposits as business income. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the documentary evidence regarding peak credit entries before passing a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the TPO had not made a fair analysis of comparables and had relied on his own findings for earlier years which were set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance of conversion charges paid to MCD was incorrect and the same were allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite proper notice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically acted on information received without applying his own mind to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory after a return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148, for the AO to assume jurisdiction for assessment. Since no such notice was issued, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were for independent certification and did not involve making technical knowledge available to ONGC. Therefore, it did not qualify as fees for technical services under the India-USA DTAA, and since the non-resident had no PE in India, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked jurisdiction over the assessee's case. The registered office, head office, and factory of the assessee were not located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax authorities at Saharanpur. No order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act was passed by the competent authority to transfer the case. The Tribunal noted that the AO was aware of the assessee's factory location in Jaunpur (closed) and head office in Mumbai, and its registered office in Dehradun. The fact that the assessee's PAN was coded under ACIT, Saharanpur, did not confer jurisdiction, especially since the assessee never filed returns there, nor was its principal place of business located there. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) that the AO should have transferred the case to the jurisdictional AO at Dehradun. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in Dasa Muni Reddy v. Appa Rao and Dhirendra Nath Gorai v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, and the Allahabad High Court judgment in Sant Baba Mohan Singh vs. CIT, to establish that a want of jurisdiction renders proceedings a nullity, which cannot be waived. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were a nullity, and the AO's assumption of jurisdiction was legally untenable. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal held that the assessee, not being a professionally qualified doctor, was carrying on a business, not a profession. Therefore, the higher threshold for business turnover applied, and the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that since the director of the lender company appeared and confirmed the loan, and the lender had sufficient funds in its bank account, the addition made by the AO was not justified. The inquiry by the Investigation Wing also did not reveal anything adverse.
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 appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.