Loading ITAT cases…
469 orders · Page 6 of 10
The ITAT restored the issue of depreciation on the sale and leaseback transaction to the AO for fresh adjudication. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow computer software expenses as revenue expenditure. The ITAT restored the issue of depreciation on leased vehicles to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence. The ITAT decided the issue of interest on sticky loans in favour of the assessee. The ITAT restored the issue of foreign travel expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular and not on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that since the assessments for the relevant assessment years were already completed before the search, additions under section 153A could only be made if there was incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessments for the relevant assessment years were already completed before the search, additions under section 153A could only be made if there was incriminating material found during the search. As no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, is binding on income tax authorities and applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the department should not have filed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the instant appeal should not have been filed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribes a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lacs for Revenue appeals to the ITAT. This circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the books of account should be rejected and profit estimated, as this would cover all infirmities. They confirmed the estimation of net profit at 15% on sales, considering the various issues raised.
The Tribunal found a contradiction between the AO's treatment of the transaction as an unexplained purchase and the CIT(A)'s treatment as a sale resulting in capital gain. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal allowed exemption for arrears of gratuity and leave encashment, following a similar precedent. However, the ground regarding the initiation of reassessment was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's surrender was not voluntary but a response to information unearthed by the Assessing Officer. It further stated that a voluntary disclosure does not absolve the assessee from penalty proceedings, especially when there is no intention to make a full and true disclosure.
The tribunal held that the assessee was a 'holder of civil post under a State' because Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University is a State entity. Therefore, he was entitled to full exemption for gratuity under Section 10(10)(i) and for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA)(i).
The Tribunal restored the issue of repairs and maintenance expenses to the AO for proper identification of let-out properties. It deleted the disallowance of administrative expenses, stating that lower business receipts do not justify disallowing expenses incurred for business purposes. The disallowance of depreciation was also deleted, as the assets were used for business and the restriction was ad hoc.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of disallowances, stating that the AO's disallowances were not specific, lacked detailed inquiry, and were made on an ad-hoc basis without sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's practice of purchasing materials on a need basis was consistent and had not led to disallowances in prior years.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was not served at the correct address provided by the assessee on the return. This failure to serve the notice correctly renders the assessment invalid, even with the provisions of section 292BB.
The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, treated the appeal as unadmitted due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the books of account should be rejected and profit estimated, as this would cover all infirmities. They confirmed the estimation of net profit at 15% on sales, considering the various issues raised.
The Tribunal held that market development expenses are revenue in nature, facilitating trading operations and not creating an asset of enduring benefit. It also relied on its own previous decisions regarding franchise expenses.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribed a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lacs for appeals to the ITAT. This circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that the excess depreciation claim was an inadvertent mistake and not an intentional concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Following the precedent of Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal held that since the addition was based on an estimated profit rate, which was further reduced by the tribunal, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed. The penalty was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter to the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was granted liberty to draw adverse inference if the assessee remained elusive.
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. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that lump sum contributions made under a defined benefit scheme to a pension fund do not attract FBT provisions under Section 115WB(1)(c). This is because no individual employee has a specific benefit earmarked, and the contributions assure future benefits contingent on various factors.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty. There was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the assessee had disclosed the claim and provided details in its return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty. There was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the assessee had disclosed the claim and provided details in its return.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were valid. It found that the initial audit objection led to an independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee had not raised objections at the initial stages of reassessment.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding insufficient opportunity and the rejection of the Rule 46 application. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued mechanically without application of mind, based on vague information. The AO did not independently verify the information or establish a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of its representative, especially when documentary evidence was available. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be well-reasoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence, including creditor confirmations and PAN details, and that the AO had not properly verified the genuineness of the transactions before making additions. The estimated disallowance of expenses was also found to be unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that lump sum contributions made under a defined benefit scheme to a pension fund do not attract FBT provisions under Section 115WB(1)(c). This is because no individual employee has a specific benefit earmarked, and the contributions assure future benefits contingent on various factors.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance and lack of communication, inferred disinterest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the TDS credit should be granted to the transferee company as per the amalgamation scheme. The AO was directed to give effect to the appellate order manually and formalize the credit.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that lump sum contributions made under a defined benefit scheme to a pension fund do not attract FBT provisions under Section 115WB(1)(c). This is because no individual employee has a specific benefit earmarked, and the contributions assure future benefits contingent on various factors.
The Tribunal held that as per Accounting Standard-4, events occurring after the balance sheet date that provide additional information materially affecting the determination of amounts relating to conditions existing at the balance sheet date require adjustments. Therefore, the foreign exchange fluctuation loss should be allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for bad debts written off as irrecoverable, citing Supreme Court precedent. Regarding business promotion expenses, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the payment date was a Sunday, which would allow for cash payment under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as there was no tangible material to form the requisite belief of escapement of income. The assessment framed in furtherance of this invalid reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were valid. It found that the initial information from audit objections was not the sole basis, and there was an independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also ruled that the transfer of land for capital gains was not completed as the sale deed was not executed and possession was not handed over.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was based had been deleted by the ITAT in the assessee's own case, the penalty order had no basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the net adjustment for international transactions was within the 5% tolerance limit of Section 92C(2), thus no addition was warranted on that count. It also ruled that Section 10A is an exemption provision, and brought forward losses should be set off against income after the Section 10A exemption is applied.