Loading ITAT cases…
462 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that interest income earned by an NBFC from bank deposits, when funds could not be deployed as loans, should be treated as business income. The Tribunal also noted the consistency of this treatment in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. The circular, with retrospective effect, directed withdrawal or non-pressing of such appeals.
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 The Revenue should have either not filed or withdrawn the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not accepting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, especially considering the assessee's claim of being a farmer and having been sick. The case was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) to consider the additional evidence and decide the deduction claim.
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. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals is applicable retrospectively. As the tax effect in this appeal was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, with retrospective effect, revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 10,00,000/-. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal.
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. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistake of their counsel.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice does not automatically admit an appeal, and non-appearance by the assessee renders the appeal defective. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. 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 appeal was less than that limit.
The ITAT 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 held that the AO failed to establish with cogent material that the seized documents belonged to the assessee, a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found the satisfaction note to be insufficient.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted and dismissed.
The ITAT restored the issues of working capital and risk adjustments to the TPO for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide relevant data for these adjustments, and the TPO was to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice does not automatically admit an appeal, and non-appearance or failure to prosecute the appeal renders it defective. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in invoking Section 50C for the entire gain and in rejecting the assessee's valuation report. The land, not being a depreciable asset, should not be considered for short-term capital gain.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice of hearing does not automatically mean the appeal is admitted. Non-appearance by the assessee renders the appeal defective and it is dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable for the capitalized interest as the disallowance itself was not justified due to sufficient interest-free funds available and the issue being covered by Supreme Court decisions. However, penalty was sustained for the difference in receipts due to lack of satisfactory explanation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition. The Tribunal agreed that the deposits belonged to the partnership firm and were duly accounted for in its books, even if there was a technical violation of the Partnership Act.
The Tribunal held that additional depreciation is allowable on machinery acquired and installed after March 31, 2005, even if the capital work-in-progress was transferred during the year. The disallowance by the AO and confirmation by the CIT(A) were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from the commercial property, which was temporarily let out while the assessee continued other business activities, should be taxed as income from business, following the Supreme Court's decision in Universal Plast Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 268A of the Act are binding on income tax authorities.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to appreciate the facts of the case, specifically that certain unsecured loans had been repaid during the year. Consequently, these repaid loans were correctly not included in the closing balance for the subsequent year. The addition made by the AO was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed by the partners had no nexus with the business of the firm and were not incurred to earn the remuneration and interest income. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order upholding the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed by the partners had no nexus with the business of the firm and were not incurred to earn the remuneration and interest income. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order upholding the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation. Furthermore, since there was no change in shareholding in the impugned assessment year compared to the previous year, Section 79 would not debar the assessee from carrying forward and setting off business losses.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the lack of representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that once books of accounts are rejected under Section 145(3), income must be estimated. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the entire addition was not in accordance with law. The income should be estimated based on past performance.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on a security deposit cannot be considered as derived from the business of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80IC deduction. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot estimate the net profit without invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. Since Section 145(3) was not invoked, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the estimated addition.
The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and considering the lack of representation, decided to dismiss the appeal. They noted that the assessee could seek a recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the income should be treated as capital gains. They noted the assessee's consistent filing pattern and the AO's acceptance of similar income in a prior year.
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the lack of representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10 Lacs, is applicable retrospectively. As the tax effect was below this limit, the departmental appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have first decided the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee before proceeding to the merits. The impugned order was set aside to allow the CIT(A) to decide the jurisdictional issue first.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was bad in law because the AO had not recorded a proper satisfaction note based on seized documents belonging to the assessee. The assessment framed on the basis of this invalid notice was not maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a condonation of delay application and appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the AO, which formed the basis for the penalty, were subsequently deleted by the ITAT in quantum proceedings, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the mere issuance of a notice does not admit an appeal. Non-prosecution of the appeal due to the assessee's absence renders it defective and inadmissible.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the receipt of tips by an employee from a customer is not a direct consequence of the contract of employment. Therefore, it falls outside the purview of Section 192, and the assessee cannot be held in default for not deducting TDS on these tips.
The Tribunal decided to issue a corrigendum to rectify apparent mistakes in the original order, stating these rectifications would not enhance the assessment or increase the assessee's liability. The corrigendum aimed to ensure the order is read and understood as intended, incorporating corrections to various paragraphs and references.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance for free goods and commission as these were ascertainable expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions related to written-back provisions for discount/rebate and bad debts, as the assessee was not required to prove the debts had become bad.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was bad in law because the AO had not recorded a proper satisfaction note based on seized documents belonging to the assessee. The assessment framed on the basis of this invalid notice was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that share application money is neither a loan nor a deposit as per the explanation to Section 269SS. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS are not attracted, and consequently, no penalty can be imposed under Section 271D.
The Tribunal, following precedent, held that mere issuance of notice does not admit an appeal. Non-appearance by the assessee makes the appeal defective and inadmissible for hearing.