Loading ITAT cases…
393 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal restored the issue of addition of Rs. 9 lakhs (and Rs. 22 lakhs in the other appeal) related to the Mahajan Shree CGHS to the AO for fresh adjudication, citing lack of proper inquiry by the CIT(A). The addition for jewellery was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal restored the issue of addition of Rs. 9 lakhs (and Rs. 22 lakhs in the other appeal) related to the Mahajan Shree CGHS to the AO for fresh adjudication, citing lack of proper inquiry by the CIT(A). The addition for jewellery was deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not issued a notice under Section 143(2) to the assessee after the filing of the return. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found this omission to be mandatory and not a procedural irregularity. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed invalid and void ab initio.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed due to a significant delay and insufficient reasons for condonation.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding instructions from the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for filing appeals before the ITAT. The circular was made applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted some evidence of activities, including a proposal for land acquisition for a school, which was not placed before the CIT. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeals.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the Department should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding proportionate taxation of deemed dividend. It also held that share premium account does not form part of accumulated profits. The issue of proportionate distribution of deemed dividend was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the department ought not to have filed the appeal given the low tax effect and the binding CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the addition of hostel surplus fee receipts and disallowance of depreciation is squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society. Therefore, the additions in dispute were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that while the seized material might not directly belong to the assessee, it indicated a modus operandi of paying unaccounted interest on PDCs within the group. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction for recomputation of interest.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was defective and not maintainable in law. The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that while the seized material might not directly belong to the assessee, it indicated a modus operandi of paying unaccounted interest on PDCs within the group. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction for recomputation of interest.
The Tribunal held that AMCL was not functionally comparable to the assessee as the assessee was a captive unit while AMCL was a full-fledged manufacturing and marketing company. Consequently, the determination of ALP was flawed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the addition of hostel surplus fee receipts and the disallowance of depreciation is squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society. Therefore, the additions in dispute were deleted.
The Tribunal held that AMCL was not functionally comparable to the assessee as the assessee was a captive unit while AMCL was a full-fledged manufacturing and marketing company. Consequently, the determination of ALP was flawed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to be heard, emphasizing that it should be used in good faith.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence and in not ensuring the assessee was given an opportunity to be heard by the DVO. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not properly examine the bona fides of the assessee's explanation regarding the loose papers. The Assessing Officer also failed to record findings on whether the explanation was bona fide and if all material facts were disclosed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153A, additions can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search, especially when the assessment has not abated. Since no such material was found and the original assessments were completed, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without the AO applying their own mind. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the department's appeal had become infructuous because the issue had been settled by the jurisdictional High Court, and the AO had already given effect to the High Court's order by revising the assessment.
The Tribunal held that tips collected from customers and distributed to employees do not constitute salary under Sections 15 and 17 of the Income Tax Act, as there is no vested right in the employee to claim tips from the employer. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on these amounts.
The Tribunal held that the capital loss was incurred first in time, and the sale of shares was not a contrived transaction to avoid tax. The Tribunal also restored the issue of brokerage expenses to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) prior to AY 2010-11. For losses on securities, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of whether the loss was incurred in the course of business and when it crystallized.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's absence indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) restored the issue to the AO without obtaining a remand report, which was a statutory violation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) is applicable, deeming concealment of income when there's a difference between returns filed under section 139 and 153A post-search. However, it clarified that capital losses declared in the original return should be excluded from penalty computation.
The Tribunal held that proportionate allocation of indirect expenses to WIP is incorrect. The AO must examine each expense on a case-to-case basis to determine if it is directly related to the specific projects.
The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153A, additions can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search, especially when the assessment has not abated. Since no such material was found and the original assessments were completed, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the decision in Param Hans Swami Uma Bharti Mission vs. ACIT, where the income was from interest on FDRs. However, in the present case, the income is from rent received from an educational institute. The Tribunal also observed that the decisions now relied upon by the assessee were not discussed by the lower authorities. Furthermore, it was unclear if the facts were identical for the preceding and succeeding years when exemption was granted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issue and remanded it back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is to consider the various decisions relied upon by the assessee and verify the facts relevant to the preceding and succeeding years, providing a due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the lack of any request for adjournment, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was dismissed without adjudication.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including an agreement to sell land and an affidavit from the purchaser, to explain the deposits and credits.
The Tribunal held that currency derivative transactions carried out on a recognized stock exchange through a broker, as per the provisions of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, are not speculative in nature. Therefore, the loss incurred is a business loss eligible for set off.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable merely because an addition was made based on the deeming provisions of Section 50C, especially when the AO did not question the actual consideration received or find that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal followed a precedent where similar penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable merely because an addition was made based on the deeming provisions of section 50C, especially when the AO did not question the actual consideration received or find that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal, following Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, treated the appeal as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance and dismissed it in limine. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal could be recalled if the assessee provides satisfactory reasons for non-appearance.