Loading ITAT cases…
411 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, finding that the assessee acted under a bona fide belief regarding the liability and its tax treatment. The assessee had no intention to conceal income, as evidenced by offering the amount for taxation in different years and paying taxes thereon.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment and the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on computer accessories and club expenses.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation accrues year after year and cannot be taxed entirely in the year of receipt. It also ruled that credit for TDS on such interest cannot be allowed in the assessment year where the corresponding income is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for Section 10A exemption from the date of setting up, as the delay in STPI registration did not disqualify it for the remaining period. The use of old computers for administrative purposes did not constitute reconstruction of business.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in e-filing TDS returns, as the manual returns were filed on time and the default was due to administrative reasons like a clerk's transfer. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the commission paid to directors, following its own prior decisions. For the disallowance under Section 14A, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, particularly for AY 2010-11, based on previous tribunal orders.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that relevant facts to decide the jurisdictional issue were not available on record. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to first decide the jurisdictional issue and then proceed on merits if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine without considering the merits, even if the assessee is absent. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine without considering the merits, even if the assessee is absent. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of net profit rate, finding the AO's reasoning unsustainable. The issue of disallowance for unconfirmed vendor payments was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication. The disallowance of employee reimbursements was deleted as the expenses were revenue in nature and did not require TDS.
The Tribunal held that the issue of ESOP expenditure needed fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. Regarding software expenditure, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow it as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that their explanations and documentary evidence were not considered by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the issue of ESOP expenditure needed fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. Regarding software expenditure, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow it as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be based on the peak credit in the bank account, not the total deposits, especially when withdrawals were also made. The AO was directed to recompute the addition based on the peak credit.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271C should be deleted, following precedents from the Delhi High Court and ITAT. The assessee had already deposited the difference in TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the SEBI fees were rightly allowed as a deduction as they were paid during the year after the dispute was resolved. The Tribunal also agreed with the direction to recompute the long-term capital loss with indexation.
The Tribunal held that a possible view existed to treat the compensation as not taxable under Section 17(3), thus the assessment order was not erroneous. The CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal rejected the department's adjournment application and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. The dismissal was based on the CBDT circular and the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) cannot be the sole basis for making an addition without corroborating material found during the search. Procedural irregularities in filing an appeal do not invalidate the adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this appeal was admittedly below the limit, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that since no assessment was pending at the time of the search and no incriminating material was found, the addition made under section 153A was not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and did not pass a speaking order, failing to comply with Section 250 of the IT Act. The issues were therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's decision to accept a partial addition to avoid protracted litigation did not demonstrate a lack of good faith or due diligence. The penalty order was quashed as the Revenue failed to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that a proper FAR analysis of the assessee is a foundational exercise for selecting comparables. The matter was restored to the TPO to conduct this exercise and pass a speaking order, also directing the TPO to carry out the DRP's directions regarding imputed interest.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for bogus creditors, finding the explanation regarding adjustments and RTGS payments satisfactory. It also confirmed the deletion of disallowance on chemical expenses, noting the AO's failure to point out discrepancies and the assessee's justification for the increase. The Tribunal also upheld the reduced estimation of scrap sales, finding the AO's estimation to be a guess and not comparable to other cases.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. Therefore, the additions made were not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the succeeding assessment year was decided in favor of the assessee, deleting a similar disallowance. Following this precedent, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not to be considered a precedent for future years with higher tax effects.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied their mind while recording the reasons for reopening, merely relying on information received without independent application. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it failed to challenge the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Revenue only agitated the addition on merits, which was not permissible given the invalidity of the reassessment.
The Tribunal restored the issues related to cash sales and additions to the AO for de novo adjudication, directing a detailed verification of evidence. The Tribunal allowed the disallowance under Section 14A, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the sundry creditors, including direct confirmations and explanations for unserved notices. Regarding the commission, the Tribunal was satisfied with the evidence of services rendered and the qualifications of the commission agents.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt. It reasoned that the injury was caused to the profit-making apparatus (the land) and the compensation was for lost profit due to non-supply, similar to a case where compensation was awarded for non-supply of technical know-how for a new business venture.