Loading ITAT cases…
462 orders · Page 6 of 10
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The mere fact that the transactions were through banking channels was not sufficient to establish genuineness.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the nature and source of the credits. The Revenue's arguments could not controvert the factual findings of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, following its own precedents, allowed exemption for arrears of gratuity and leave encashment. It held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(10)(i) and Section 10(10AA)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be withdrawn or not pressed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted the consistent absence of the assessee and the lack of any communication regarding adjournment. Presuming the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal, the Tribunal decided to dismiss 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 in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence, such as a sale deed or buyer's confirmation, to substantiate the claim that the cash deposits were from the sale of a property. Therefore, the addition of the unexplained cash deposit as income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, which was Rs. 10,00,000. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, allowed exemption for the arrears of gratuity and leave encashment. The Tribunal extended the benefit of exemption to the assessee under Section 10(10)(i) and Section 10(10AA)(i).
The Tribunal found that for some comparables, the TPO's order lacked sufficient detail and clarity regarding segmental data availability and confrontation to the assessee. Consequently, these issues were restored to the TPO for a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine as confirmed by the availability of supplier account copies, subsequent year payments, and purchase bills. The AO's reasoning that the assessee had sufficient cash to make immediate payment was not a valid basis to treat credit purchases as non-genuine.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to persistent non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal precedent, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals concerning lease rent disallowances, finding that the parties were genuine and the lease rent was allowable. The Tribunal also deleted an addition related to lease rent paid to specific parties, following its own earlier decision. However, the cross-objections filed by the assessee regarding other expense disallowances were dismissed.
The Tribunal, citing Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and relevant case law, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it. The order clarified that the appeal could be recalled if the assessee provided satisfactory reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the TPO was indeed time-barred as it was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 92CA(3A) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the additions made on account of transfer pricing adjustments were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals concerning lease rent disallowances, finding that the parties were genuine and the lease rent was allowable. The Tribunal also deleted an addition related to lease rent paid to specific parties, following its own earlier decision. However, the cross-objections filed by the assessee regarding other expense disallowances were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be treated as a firm and allowed deductions for salary and interest to partners. It also allowed the interest on security/licence fee and excise consumption money as business expenditure.
The Tribunal, satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee for the ex parte orders, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment and consideration of penalty.
The Tribunal held that the sales-tax incentive was a capital receipt, aiming to encourage industrial development in a backward area, and thus should be excluded from book profit. The foreign travel expenses were allowed as FBT was paid on them.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect. The decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulated a monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal, satisfied with the reasons provided by the assessee for the ex parte orders, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment and consideration of penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be treated as a firm and allowed deductions for salary and interest to partners. It also allowed the interest on security/licence fee and excise consumption money as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the claim for commission remained unsubstantiated due to the recipient's death. However, considering other similar commissions were allowed, it was difficult to conclude that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars attracting penalty.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that un-reimbursed foreign travel expenses linked to consultancy, professional fees for audited financial statements, and business promotion expenses incurred for client meetings should be allowed. A reduced disallowance of 15% was deemed appropriate for personal use of telephone and car.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect. The appeals were dismissed as they had become infructuous based on a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal decided the appeal ex-parte as none appeared for the Department.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted to the AO for re-examination of the issue after considering the new evidence and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the entire amount could not be treated as deemed dividend. However, an excess amount of Rs. 3,35,000, which was beyond the existing share application money, was ordered to be treated as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity for hearing. Furthermore, on merits, the penalty was not sustainable on any of the three counts as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153C (which is related to Section 153A) are unsustainable if they are barred by limitation or if additions are made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 13(3) as the appointments and remuneration paid to relatives of trustees were in accordance with norms and for services rendered. The Tribunal also noted that development charges were indeed shown in the books of account.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be sufficient cause, particularly attributing the delay to the counsel's actions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153C (which is related to Section 153A) are unsustainable if they are barred by limitation or if additions are made without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 13(3) as the appointments and remuneration paid to relatives of trustees were in accordance with norms and for services rendered. The Tribunal also noted that development charges were indeed shown in the books of account.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the delay was neither deliberate nor due to negligence. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the appeal was restored for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as the AO did not apply his mind to the material and merely relied on information from the Investigation Wing without independent verification. The subsequent assessment was therefore void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS must be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, as per Section 199 and Rule 37BA(3)(i). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to credit for the TDS deducted by HUDA.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine due to low tax effect. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, finding that share application money was correctly excluded from investments for calculating disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was invalid because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued after the assessee's submission, as required by law for returns filed pursuant to a Section 148 notice.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income is earned or receivable. It also held that for cessation of liability under Section 41(1), the assessee must have obtained a benefit by way of remission or cessation, which was not demonstrated.
The Tribunal held that the receipt of tips by employees from customers is not a direct consequence of the contract of employment. Therefore, such tips fall outside the scope of Section 192, and the assessee cannot be held liable for TDS deduction on them.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had merely acted mechanically on the information received and had not applied his mind to reopen the case under Section 147. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings and the consequent assessment were quashed.