Loading ITAT cases…
462 orders · Page 10 of 10
The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was defective, issued at an incorrect address, and not served on the assessee within the prescribed time. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the AO had misinterpreted the auditor's note, and the amount in question was accumulated unprovided interest on a loan from KDLC, not a new loan. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the advance written off, being an unrecoverable business expense, is allowable. It also held that the professional fees paid were below the threshold for TDS deduction under Section 40(a)(ia), making the disallowance incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80HH on income derived from manufacturing activities, even if it was not the primary business. However, due to a lack of separate accounts, the quantum of deduction needed to be calculated by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no illegality or infirmity. The Tribunal followed its own prior ruling and judgments from the Supreme Court and High Court, which treated advertisement expenses as revenue expenditure.
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 The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of notional interest on interest-free advances has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the Revenue's ground of appeal is not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitted the additional evidence from the bank, and restored the case to the AO for re-adjudication of the notional interest issue.