Loading ITAT cases…
586 orders · Page 7 of 12
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case, considering the interest of justice and the fact that notices were only sent twice by speed post.
The Tribunal held that hiring of taxis where the assessee does not take possession and the operator remains custodian is not akin to taking plant and machinery on lease. Therefore, TDS is correctly deductible under Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that hiring of taxis where the assessee does not take possession and the operator remains custodian is not akin to taking plant and machinery on lease. Therefore, TDS is correctly deductible under Section 194C.
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Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed on this ground.
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Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have any tangible material beyond what was already available in the original returns. The AO's reasons for reopening did not demonstrate a belief that income had escaped assessment, making the proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that once the addition in the quantum proceedings is deleted, the penalty levied on the same addition cannot sustain. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have any tangible material beyond what was already available in the original returns. The AO's reasons for reopening did not demonstrate a belief that income had escaped assessment, making the proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses and school running expenses were correctly deleted by the CIT(A) as they were either not claimed by the assessee or integrally related to business. The addition on account of club membership fees was also deleted following previous consistent rulings. The disallowance under Section 14A was not sustained due to lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the property was held by the assessee for more than 36 months, thus qualifying as a long-term capital asset. The claim for improvement expenses was rejected due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement to sell.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share capital and premium received. It also found no specific reason from the Pr. CIT to question the NIL WIP. Therefore, the revisionary order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of deposits of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- through property transactions and their subsequent refund. It also held that the CIT(A) could not enhance the assessment by introducing new sources of income not considered by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the sale of land was of a capital asset, and the profit was in the nature of capital gain. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for land development expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the difference of Rs. 2,11,789/- could not be attributed to minor discrepancies, especially since the returns were based on audited accounts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the sale of land was of a capital asset, and the profit was in the nature of capital gain. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for land development expenditure.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses and school running expenses were correctly deleted by the CIT(A) as they were either not claimed by the assessee or integrally related to business. The addition on account of club membership fees was also deleted following previous consistent rulings. The disallowance under Section 14A was not sustained due to lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the AO.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. It also held that foreign exchange fluctuation gain, job work charges, and charges against defective material are income derived from the industrial undertaking eligible for Section 80IC deduction, but duty drawback receipts are not.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was imposed had already been deleted by a previous ITAT order for the same assessee and assessment year, there was no basis for levying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order should not be nullified solely on the ground that the assessee company was in liquidation. Citing precedents from the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sumantbhai C Munshaw and the Delhi High Court in Vijay Sarin Vs ITO, the Tribunal noted that if legal representatives or authorized persons participated in assessment proceedings without challenging jurisdiction, the assessment may not be a nullity. However, to address the specific circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored the matter to the AO/TPO. The AO/TPO was directed to verify whether the assessee informed relevant authorities about the applicability of the Indian Income-tax Act, complied with provisions related to liquidation (Section 178) or business discontinuity (Section 176), and whether the representatives challenged the proceedings before the AO on the ground of a non-existent entity. The genuineness of the dissolution certificate and the locus standi of the representatives were also to be verified. If the AO found the representatives competent, they were to decide the objections regarding the assessment on a non-existent entity. If the validity of the assessment was upheld, the AO/TPO was to pass the assessment order on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that outstanding receivables beyond the agreed credit period constitute an international transaction, and interest imputation is justified. However, it remanded the issue of adjustment in respect of interest on receivables for re-examination by the TPO/AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order which directed the AO to examine and allow the benefit of cost of acquisition at Rs. 50,000/- per bigha, as accepted in a similar case. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument that the property was not a capital asset due to its distance from municipal limits, as no evidence was provided.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in applying the benefit test to royalty and technical fees, as it is not a prescribed method under Section 92C. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation loss treatment back to the TPO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the quantitative details of gold purchases and sales, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Pr. CIT was justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal held that since the defects, specifically the non-payment of filing fees, were not removed by the assessee, the appeals were not maintainable.
The CIT(A) deleted the AO's disallowance, relying on Delhi High Court decisions that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Since the assessee's suo motu disallowance was higher than the exempt income, the AO's disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that since the defects, specifically the non-payment of filing fees, were not removed by the assessee, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot question the commercial expediency or reasonableness of expenditure incurred for the purpose of business. The disallowance was made on an ad hoc basis without evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and that the matter required reconsideration. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of travel and conveyance expenses to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a precedent from a prior assessment year. The Tribunal allowed the ground related to EPF contributions, directing the deletion of the disallowance as the contributions were deposited before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal allowed relief to the extent of the opening cash balance, finding the CIT(A)'s observation about lack of documentary evidence incorrect. The addition for household expenses was upheld, but the addition for the brother's medical treatment was deleted based on the assessee's explanation.
The CIT(A) investigated the matter by summoning the other party and verifying documents, concluding that the receipt was a genuine forfeited advance. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence presented by the assessee was relevant and essential for a just decision. The CIT(A) should have admitted these evidences instead of rejecting them. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for reconsideration after admitting the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio as the assessment year in question had already been concluded before the search. No incriminating material was found to justify reopening the concluded assessment under Section 153C read with Section 153A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's reliance on his CA. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in applying the benefit test to royalty and technical fees, as it is not a prescribed method under Section 92C. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation loss treatment back to the TPO for verification.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, finding it necessary in the interest of justice. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The surrender of Rs. 10 lakhs was made on the AO's suggestion without specific particulars of concealed income, making it unsuitable for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable as there was no material to depart from the rule of consistency, and the rejection of books of accounts was not justified. The shortages claimed on account of moisture loss were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source due to a bona fide belief, supported by the lack of contrary judgments at the time of payment. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty. For Section 14A, no penalty is leviable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. For the other two disallowances, the Tribunal found that they represented a difference of opinion between the AO and the assessee regarding capitalization of expenses, not furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. However, regarding the addition of Rs. 5.07 Lacs, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of sufficient evidence presented by the assessee regarding the availability and genuineness of the shares sold.
The Tribunal decided to exclude three comparable companies (Apitco, Choksi Laboratories, and Wapcos) used by the TPO for benchmarking. The Tribunal found these companies to be functionally dissimilar and lacking proper segmental data. The assessee's grounds for including other comparables were not pressed.
The Tribunal held that fringe benefit tax is not leviable on certain advertisement expenses. For conveyance expenses, the Tribunal made a fair estimate due to lack of sufficient details from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not satisfy the 'make available' test under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA. Consequently, the income was not taxable in India. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted as the assessee's claim was not inaccurate but merely rejected.