Loading ITAT cases…
340 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order for the deemed rental income and remitted the matter to the AO to determine the annual letting value as per law after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Similarly, the matter of deemed dividend was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the nature of the amount received.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 19.50 lakhs and directed the assessee to produce directors and details of funds for verification. For the disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal allowed the assessee one more opportunity to produce books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that rental income from corporate office and quarters let out to third parties/sister concerns should be treated as income from house property, but rental income from quarters let out to employees should be treated as business income. Rental income from the MD office was also to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that rental income from corporate office and quarters let out to third parties/sister concerns should be treated as income from house property, but rental income from quarters let out to employees should be treated as business income. Rental income from the MD office was also to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263. Following CBDT Circular No. 359 and various tribunal decisions, it was decided that investment of advance sale consideration before the date of transfer qualifies for deduction under Section 54EC.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. It reasoned that the AO failed to independently investigate the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the parties from whom the application money was received, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish these aspects during the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to continue its registration under Section 12A and its income should be governed by Sections 11 and 12. This was based on the fact that there was no change in the nature of activities and a CBDT circular clarified that registration cancellation is not mandatory solely for exceeding the threshold in Section 2(15).
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a pecuniary limit for appeals. As the circular's provisions were made applicable retrospectively, the appeal was deemed non-maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed several grounds of appeal for the assessee, finding them identical to those decided in the previous assessment year. These decisions pertained to disallowances related to inventory valuation, provisions for price increases, and deductions under Section 80IC.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of the CBDT circular regarding pecuniary limits. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee had a bona fide belief that tax was not deductible at source, and the recipient has discharged their tax liability, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted. The retrospective application of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was also accepted.
The Tribunal held that abnormal costs cannot be included in the cost for calculating the profit-level indicator (PLI) without concrete evidence of the loss's nature and extent. It also ruled that transfer pricing adjustments must be restricted to international transactions with associated enterprises (AEs) and not applied to uncontrolled transactions.
The tribunal found the reasons for the assessee's absence before the CIT(A) to be satisfactory. Consequently, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty notice was also found to be vague, failing to specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being imposed. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the rent disallowance was incorrect as the lessor admitted leasing and handing over possession from the effective date. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found the AO's satisfaction recorded for disallowance to be valid and upheld the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the rent disallowance was incorrect as the lessor admitted leasing and handing over possession from the effective date. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found the AO's satisfaction recorded for disallowance to be valid and upheld the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of representation and any request for adjournment, the appeals had to be dismissed. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.
The Tribunal upheld the view that expenses incurred on renovation and improvement of leased premises, even if claimed as temporary, are capital in nature. Such capital expenditure on leasehold improvements is eligible for depreciation under Explanation 1 to Section 32.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of the binding CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of the CBDT circular prescribing a pecuniary limit for appeals. The circular was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, where the original assessment was under Section 143(3), there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Since the assessee had disclosed the relevant expenses and provisions in its Profit & Loss Account, Notes to Accounts, and Tax Audit Report, the condition for reassessment was not met.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the fresh evidence and the remand report. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the assessee's claim based on the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a pecuniary limit for appeals. Board's instructions are binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made for investments in the EOU as they were made from the assessee's own funds (capital and profits) and not borrowed funds. The disallowance for investments in shares was upheld by the CIT(A).