Loading ITAT cases…
462 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without considering the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the completion of the reassessment, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Consequently, the other grounds challenging the jurisdiction and the addition were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in calculating the quantity of closing stock and in arbitrarily estimating rates without rejecting the assessee's audited books of accounts. It also found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the sources of capital and loan introductions from relatives.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000 should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
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. As the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the department should not have filed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since no shares were allotted and the amount was returned, it was not a loan or deposit, thus Section 269SS was not applicable. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and passed in haste, failing to consider the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to explain their stand. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessments were already completed before the search and no incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found, additions could not be made under Section 153C. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below Rs. 10,00,000.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/-, and the tax effect in this case was less than that limit.
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not pressed, citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals. The tax effect was below the revised limit.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for obtaining a license from HUDA and related bank loans were for business purposes. It also relied on a High Court decision that interest income on FDRs used for business purposes is business income and should be netted with interest paid.
The Tribunal held that the loss on sale of debentures and government securities was rightly claimed as a business loss, following previous decisions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on alleged statements without confronting them to the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The cancellation of the supplier's TIN later was not conclusive proof of earlier transactions being bogus.
The Tribunal held that the loss on sale of debentures and government securities was rightly claimed as a business loss, following previous decisions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not present and had not sought an adjournment. Presuming the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed it.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the original assessment order merges with the appellate order of the CIT(A), the AO loses the jurisdiction to pass a rectification order. Therefore, the rectification order was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as they violated the CBDT circular regarding the pecuniary limit for appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal, in the absence of any representation from the assessee and no request for time, presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. Furthermore, the issue was already decided in the assessee's own case by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to respond and did not provide a clear basis for sustaining a 10% disallowance on job work and labour charges. Therefore, the issue was set aside for re-adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of wages and other expenses, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the ad-hoc disallowances. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the expenses, and subsequent assessment years did not see similar disallowances.
The ITAT held that the reassessment order was not sustainable as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were used against them. The addition of 20% of purchases was also deleted as the purchases were not proven to be bogus.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not explicitly state that the notice for hearing was served on the assessee. Citing the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem'), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that once the original assessment order merges with the appellate order of the CIT(A), the AO loses the jurisdiction to pass a rectification order. Therefore, the rectification order was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted the consistent non-appearance of the assessee and, following precedent, decided to dismiss the appeal in limine as not admitted. The dismissal is for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its primary onus for both categories of share applicants (cash and cheque payments) by providing confirmations, affidavits, and bank statements. The Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of wages and other expenses, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the ad-hoc disallowances. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the expenses, and subsequent assessment years did not see similar disallowances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had no grievance as the issues were resolved in their favor. Therefore, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that once the order under Section 201(1) was set aside by a coordinate bench, the issue related to Section 40(a)(ia) did not survive. Therefore, the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that once an order under Section 201(1) of the Act is set aside, the issue related to Section 40(a)(ia) does not sustain. Therefore, the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable in light of a prior ITAT order in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to continuous non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified. The assessee provided numerous documents and certificates from government authorities proving their manufacturing activities during the relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of wages and other expenses, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the ad-hoc disallowances. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the expenses, and subsequent assessment years did not see similar disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justified. The assessee provided numerous documents and certificates from government authorities proving their manufacturing activities during the relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in ONGC Ltd. vs. CIT, holding that payments for services related to prospecting, extraction, or production of mineral oils are assessable under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, not Section 44D.