Loading ITAT cases…
393 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals should not be filed where the tax effect does not exceed monetary limits. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue should have withdrawn or not pressed the appeal.
The Tribunal found that crucial documentary evidence, including affidavits regarding repayment, was not filed before the AO and the AO had no opportunity to examine them. Therefore, the matter required re-examination by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO, finding that the AO had wrongly disbelieved the share application money received and that the commission addition was consequential. The Tribunal also noted that the company had not started business activity during the year.
The Tribunal found the TPO's method of apportioning unallocable costs based on headcount to be distorted and the method of using gross revenue also inappropriate. It directed a fresh determination of unallocable costs based on gross profit margins. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable list due to functional dissimilarity.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO was directed to decide the issue after examining the evidence and providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee and his wife are earning and filing returns regularly, and cash accrual from the beginning of the financial year until the search date cannot be denied. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of cash generation.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this case was below the limit, the Department's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer mechanically initiated reassessment proceedings without independent application of mind, based on vague reasons and information from the Directorate of Investigation. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing the identity of the lender (M/s Lotus Corporation through its proprietor's PAN), the creditworthiness (through bank statements and RTGS details), and the genuineness of the transaction (through banking channels). Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had stopped trading operations and was cleaning its balance sheet. It was contended that write-off of irrecoverable balances pertaining to business operations is allowable as a trading loss. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash received and withdrawals from business, after making payments for expenses and creditors, deposited into the bank account and used to advance loans, were sufficiently explained. The Tribunal found that the addition made on this account was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the incentive received was a capital receipt, directly linked to the procurement of a capital asset, and not revenue income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10A. The Tribunal agreed that the employees had gone for training and the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that there was no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee's conduct was not contumacious, and the addition was admitted to avoid litigation, not as an admission for penalty. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had made due inquiries and taken a plausible view on the issues. The Tribunal found that the issues were either decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years or by higher courts, or the AO had made proper investigations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide plausible reasons and supporting evidence for the significant delay of 605 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal found that the bank statements showed withdrawals and re-deposits of cash. Considering that the assessee claimed the deposits were out of prior withdrawals, the matter required re-examination at the AO's level.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision with identical facts, holding that the peak credit surrendered by the assessee should have been accepted. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
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. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT decision with identical facts, holding that the peak credit of cash deposits should have been accepted in the absence of books of account and other sources of income being pointed out by the AO. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that employees transferred from the State Government to the Nigam were eligible for exemption under Section 10(10)(i) as their terms and conditions ensured they were not in a less favourable position than government employees. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and ex-parte order, which is not sustainable. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amounts in question were on account of the sale of investments, not loans or deposits, and therefore Section 68 was not applicable. The AO was not justified in making the addition as the profit/loss from these transactions was already accounted for.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's argument that an appeal dismissed for limitation before the CIT(A) is deemed to have a defect cured as per the Karnataka High Court's decision in Rajkamal Polymers P.Ltd. vs CIT.
The Tribunal held that a jurisdictional issue cannot be dismissed as a general ground. The order passed without deciding the jurisdictional issue is set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding that the conclusion was based on incorrect facts. It directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the assessee's claim regarding withdrawals preceding deposits, based on bank statements.
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. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is directed to consider fresh evidence regarding the fire and decide the applicability of Section 44AF, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to consistent non-representation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the primary issue of the applicability of Section 44AF remained undecided by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine as the assessee was not prepared to argue and did not provide further intimation, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine as the assessee was not prepared to argue and did not provide further intimation, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, IT returns, and bank statements of the lenders. The lenders had sufficient balance in their accounts, and the transactions were through banking channels, thus the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting fresh evidence regarding improvements and other costs. The Tribunal found that the valuation report relied upon by the AO did not consider specific improvements and related expenses.
The Tribunal found that necessary evidence was not provided to the AO and that the assessee pleaded a lack of opportunity. Therefore, the case was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's explanation and allowing them to file supporting evidence.
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 found that the primary issue of the applicability of Section 44AF remained undecided by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine as the assessee was not prepared to argue and did not provide further intimation, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall if a reasonable cause for non-representation could be shown.
The Tribunal held that the onus to prove the service of notice lies with the authority whose jurisdiction is challenged. The assessee cannot be asked to produce negative evidence to prove non-service.