Loading ITAT cases…
411 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal presumed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to the lack of representation and failure to cure defects. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the Assessee's cross-objection. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the trading addition and that the addition for cash advance was not sustainable without cross-examination. However, the disallowance of director's remuneration was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A could not exceed the exempt income when no expenditure was incurred and no fresh investment was made. It also found that the interest paid on loans parked in FDRs for potential business use was not disallowable as non-business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following the CBDT circular, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to allege that the assessee had not disclosed material facts fully and truly. Additionally, the notice for reopening was not served on the assessee.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to seek setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the department should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Following the CBDT circular and Section 268A of the Act, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased vehicles should be allowed as the assessee was eligible for it. It also directed restoration of issues related to non-processing of revised returns and interest under Section 234D for verification. The addition on account of interest on sticky loans was upheld, and depreciation on capitalized assets was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with such a tax effect should have been withdrawn or not pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limini.
The Tribunal held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established precedents, the appeal was treated as unadmitted due to non-prosecution.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limini (at the outset) due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The assessee's Cross Objection was dismissed as it was time-barred.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased vehicles should be allowed as the assessee was eligible for it. It also directed restoration of issues related to non-processing of revised returns and interest under Section 234D for verification. The addition on account of interest on sticky loans was upheld, and depreciation on capitalized assets was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribed a pecuniary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
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 appeals were dismissed in limini.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the First Appellate Authority to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries into the commission receipts, considering the assessee's business model as a 'Kachcha Arhatiya'. The AO's acceptance of the assessee's explanation and claim was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 158BFA(2) should only be imposed on the undisclosed income determined in excess of the returned income, not the total assessed income. The AO was directed to recalculate the penalty accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established legal principles and precedents, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased vehicles should be allowed as the assessee was eligible for it. It also allowed the claim for loss on sale of loan portfolio and restored the issue of non-processing of revised return to the CIT(A). The issue of interest under Section 234D was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision for AY 2009-10, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a net profit rate of 5% on the undisclosed turnover instead of 8%. This was considered to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased vehicles should be allowed as the assessee was eligible for it. It also directed restoration of issues related to non-processing of revised returns and interest under Section 234D for verification. The addition on account of interest on sticky loans was upheld, and depreciation on capitalized assets was allowed.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased vehicles should be allowed as the assessee was eligible for it. It also directed restoration of issues related to non-processing of revised returns and interest under Section 234D for verification. The addition on account of interest on sticky loans was upheld, and depreciation on capitalized assets was allowed.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision for AY 2009-10, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a net profit rate of 5% on the undisclosed turnover instead of 8%. This was considered to meet the ends of justice.
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 capital gains should be taxed in AY 2009-10 as the transfer of assets to outgoing partners occurred during that period. However, the ad-hoc addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deleted as it was not based on proper justification.
The Tribunal held that certain companies were wrongly excluded or included in the comparable set. It allowed the inclusion of 'Capital Trust Ltd.' and 'Agrima Consultants International Ltd.' while excluding 'IDC (India) Ltd.' and 'Empire Industries Ltd.' from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has the option to treat listed shares and securities as stock-in-trade or investments. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Radials International, the Tribunal ruled that income from shares managed through a portfolio banker should be treated as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the loose papers alone, without corroboration, could not be the basis for addition. It also found that the cash found belonged to family members and was reflected in their books of accounts, thus explaining its source.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has the option to treat listed shares and securities as stock-in-trade or investments. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Radials International, the Tribunal ruled that income from shares managed through a portfolio banker should be treated as capital gains.
The Tribunal found that it was not established that the notice for the hearing was served on the assessee. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for setting aside the order by explaining the reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal presumed the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to persistent non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
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 upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were not based on tangible material and contained contradictions. The Tribunal agreed that the AO had not made out a case with factual and documentary basis for the addition.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of the CBDT circular regarding the pecuniary limit. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the loose papers alone, without corroboration, could not be the basis for addition. It also found that the cash found belonged to family members and was reflected in their books of accounts, thus explaining its source.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Director erred in rejecting the registration. The Tribunal found that the trust's objects and activities were genuinely educational and that the Director had failed to provide adequate material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed raised the grounds and submitted evidence, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.