Loading ITAT cases…
469 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeals, relying on a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10 lakh and was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to dispose of the legal ground regarding the non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) on merits. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on all grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, though ostensibly passed under section 143(3), should be considered as passed under section 153C read with section 143(3), following a precedent from the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had never dealt in shares, the purchase was an investment, not stock-in-trade. Therefore, no deduction for a decline in the value of investment is permissible.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the manner of earning the undisclosed income was evident from the statement recorded under Section 132(4) as 'trade advances'. The assessee had paid tax on this income, and it was assessed as business income without additions.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to cancel the penalty. The CIT(A) found that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) indicated the income was from 'Trade Advance', implying business income, and the assessee had paid tax on it.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable and should be withdrawn. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the provision for exchange rate fluctuation, when following mercantile accounting and AS-11, is an ascertained liability and not contingent. Therefore, it is an allowable expenditure. The Tribunal also dealt with issues related to depreciation on computer peripherals and unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the order to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the share capital creditors and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The AO failed to controvert the evidence or conduct further inquiry.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine solely due to the assessee's absence. The CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on merits ex parte.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that the assessee did not have a PE in India. Consequently, income from the contract was not taxable in India, and the additions made by the AO were deleted. The AO was also directed to grant credit for TDS.
The Tribunal held that the provision for exchange rate fluctuation was an ascertained liability and allowable as an expenditure, following established judicial precedents. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to depreciation on computer peripherals and unascertained liabilities.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits made for business purposes should be treated as business income. Therefore, the difference in classification did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that disallowing prior period expenses, where the assessee did not claim deduction in the preceding year and claimed it only in the current year, does not constitute concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought sufficient facts on record regarding the loan amounts and the relationship between the trustees and the related company. The CIT(A) also failed to properly consider Section 13. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was without merit and dismissed it. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by furnishing crucial documents. These included the balance sheets of the investors (Bhavani Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. and Thar Steels Pvt. Ltd.) showing the investment in the assessee's shares, bank account statements demonstrating that the investments were made through cheques and that sufficient balances were available, and copies of ITR acknowledgments of the investors, confirming they were regularly assessed to tax. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not produced evidence to rebut the genuineness of the transactions, which occurred through banking channels. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO's reliance on the statement of Sh. Tarun Goyal, an alleged entry operator, was insufficient to conclude that Bhavani Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. and Thar Steels Pvt. Ltd. were providing accommodation entries, especially since the assessee was not confronted with this statement and companies are juristic persons separate from individuals. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B is not chargeable on tax arising from a retrospective amendment to Section 115JB, as the assessee could not have foreseen this liability when calculating advance tax.
The Tribunal held that the provision for exchange rate fluctuation, when following mercantile accounting and AS-11, is an ascertained liability and an allowable revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that similar claims were accepted in previous years.
The ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer may have exceeded the scope of scrutiny based on CBDT instructions and that new evidence was presented. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that depositing the capital gains in an ordinary savings account, while not fulfilling the technical requirement for exemption, was a bona fide mistake. It did not indicate concealment of income or furnishing of wrong particulars.
The tribunal reduced the disallowance on commission to Rs. 25,000, considering the vouchers with driver signatures. It also ordered the deletion of the addition for sundry creditors, noting that these were running accounts settled in subsequent years with TDS deducted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
The CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine solely due to the assessee's absence. The appeal should be decided on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that a withdrawal of Rs. 16,50,000 was made by the other joint holder, suggesting he might have also made the deposit. The matter was restored to the AO to ascertain the depositor and their source of funds.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine solely due to the assessee's absence. The CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeal on merits ex parte.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had never dealt in shares, the purchase was an investment, not stock-in-trade. Therefore, no deduction for a decline in the value of investment is permissible.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the company had purchased the flat for its staff, which was duly reflected in its books of account. There is no prohibition for a company to provide residential accommodation to its employees.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's legal objection regarding jurisdiction was not sustainable due to retrospective amendments. Regarding the diary entries, the Tribunal agreed that the entire debit side could not be added as income and upheld the CIT(A)'s calculation of peak investment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. It found that lending constituted a substantial part of Alankit Technologies Ltd.'s business, thus falling under the exception in Section 2(22)(e)(ii).
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and bad debts. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding transfer pricing adjustments and disallowance of management fees.
The Tribunal held that the matter was covered by previous ITAT orders which allowed exemption under Section 11 and found no violation of Section 13(1)(c). The Tribunal also noted that no disallowance of salary was made in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Board's instructions are binding on the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law due to lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment framed in furtherance thereto was quashed. The addition for bogus purchases was also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that since the additions made by the AO were deleted by the CIT(A), the basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty was also rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation on a trading advance is allowable. The AO was incorrect in treating it as a derivative or mark-to-market loss, as the assessee followed accepted accounting standards and IT rules.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that since the additions made by the AO were deleted by the CIT(A), the basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty was also rightly deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and bad debts. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding transfer pricing adjustments and disallowance of management fees.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies from the transfer pricing analysis, finding them not functionally or segmentally comparable to the assessee's services. The matter was set aside for re-computation of ALP based on these directions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on sale and leaseback to the AO for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow computer software expenses as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on leased vehicles to the AO for fresh adjudication considering additional evidence. It decided the issue of interest on sticky loans in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issue of foreign travel expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circulars, including the one revising the monetary limit to Rs. 10,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal, are binding on revenue authorities and apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the department should not have filed the appeal.