Loading ITAT cases…
447 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 1.95 crore was made pursuant to a Delhi High Court decree and was a lump-sum settlement, not interest, thus Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. The Tribunal also held that the penal interest of Rs. 47,629 was a finance charge for late payment and not a penalty for an offense, making it allowable under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, finding that the assessee had reasonable cause for not producing it earlier. The Tribunal also agreed that the assessee had discharged her onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, source, and genuineness of the loans.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not apply an independent mind to the information received and the alleged accommodation entries were not proven to be received by the assessee. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, allowing the Revenue's MA. Subsequently, in the main appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs set by a new CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and not a procedural requirement. Since no such notice was issued, the assessment order was deemed invalid and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied his mind independently to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, and the reasons recorded were vague and not based on tangible material. The reopening was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of amortization of leasehold land to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to ascertain the true nature of the payments. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding depreciation on computer peripherals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and substituting the AO's best judgment assessment with his own. The Tribunal found that the AO had a reasonable basis for the additions made due to the assessee's failure to discharge the onus.
The Tribunal held that the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 if there was some inquiry by the AO, even if the CIT disagrees with its extent. The CIT's order was based on grounds not included in the show-cause notice and was therefore invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to uphold the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one more opportunity to submit comments on the remand report.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted in the assessee's own case by a prior ITAT order, the penalty would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a direct nexus between the fixed deposits and the business requirements for margin money. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice by a speaking order before completing the assessment renders the reassessment order void and illegal. Therefore, the reassessment order is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted inquiries, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's action was considered a case of inadequate inquiry, not a lack of inquiry, which does not empower the PCIT to revise the order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Delhi High Court had dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the same issue for AY 2009-10, thereby validating the ITAT's finding that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the proceedings under Section 148 were not validly initiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to follow the prescribed procedure and record reasons. Consequently, the addition made in the reassessment proceedings was not sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal, along with another related appeal, had already been decided by a previous ITAT order dated April 13, 2017. Therefore, the current hearing was unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263 was set aside, the subsequent assessment order based on it became infructuous and void. Therefore, the assessee's appeal also became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is not liable to be taxed at the maximum marginal rate even if treated as an AOP. The provisions of Section 167B, which allow for taxation at maximum marginal rates, have an exception for such registered societies.
The Tribunal held that the ESOP expenses issue, being a legal ground with facts on record, should be admitted. However, as the lower authorities had not dealt with it, the issue was remanded to the AO/TPO for decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be validly levied solely on the basis of an estimated addition after rejection of books of account, especially when the estimation is based on guesswork and not on positive evidence of concealment. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, as the tax effect was below the threshold. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Revenue's right to file a miscellaneous application if the tax effect was higher or exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the ESOP expenses issue, being a legal ground with facts on record, should be admitted. However, as the lower authorities had not dealt with it, the issue was remanded to the AO/TPO for decision.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 directs that no appeal should be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10 lac. This instruction applies to pending appeals as well.
The Tribunal noted that the addition on which the penalty was based had been deleted in a prior order. Therefore, the penalty order was no longer sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the four-year period without demonstrating the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Issues at points 1 and 3 of the AO's reasons were already examined during the original assessment, indicating a change of opinion.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the notice and orders did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was void ab initio.
The Tribunal, following established rules and precedents, inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had offered a disallowance, it could not be said there was a conscious attempt to conceal income. Therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per the retrospective CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was found that the assessee's shareholding in the company was only 9.16%, which is less than the 10% threshold required for Section 2(22)(e) to apply.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice does not automatically admit an appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was deemed unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's assessment remained unchanged despite the Section 263 order. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Apitco Limited should be excluded as a comparable due to functional dissimilarity. It also found TSR Darashaw Limited to be a broking and investment banking house, not comparable to the assessee's services.