Loading ITAT cases…
684 orders · Page 2 of 14
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 3/2018. The circular's revised monetary limits apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of scrap sales needed to be remanded back to the AO for proper examination of the nature of the sales and accounting. The addition for low declaration of income was deleted as the amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular is binding on the tax authorities. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to reconsider the allowability of portfolio management fees and interest costs in light of relevant case law and the assessee's computation statement.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue in light of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular is binding on the Income-tax authorities. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of sales promotion expenses was reasonable due to lack of specific business purpose evidence for jewellery distribution. However, exhibition expenses paid in advance for a future event were allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of payment.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the appeal should not have been pressed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect. Following the CBDT circular, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the security deposit was a business transaction and not a loan or advance attracting Section 2(22)(e). The flow of money from the tenant company to the assessee was not established as a loan, and even if it were, it was for a business purpose.
The Tribunal found that the comparables selected by both the assessee and the TPO were functionally different. It also noted that the TPO/DRP did not adequately consider the details submitted by the assessee regarding management and support services.
The Tribunal found that the land transfer was to a college run by the society, not an external entity. It also noted that advances to members were less than 5% of gross receipts, thus not violating Section 13. The Tribunal felt the CIT's refusal was based on the AO's report without specific findings on non-genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal held that since the sundry creditors were from earlier years and the business was closed, it could not be presumed that there was a cessation of liability in the current year. Therefore, the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income.
The Tribunal restored the file to the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the application. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the proceedings to allow for proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be pressed or should be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the lack of any request for adjournment, concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the original trust deed, produced before it, contained the date of creation and trustee signatures, and also had clauses for appointing new trustees. Therefore, the CIT's objections were found to be non-existent in the original document.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. For AY 2003-04, the revenue's appeal was allowed, with the protective addition to continue until the substantive addition for AY 2002-03 is finally confirmed.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed without going into merits.
The Tribunal held that since the investment in shares was recorded in the assessee's audited balance sheet and funded through bank transactions, it could not be considered an unaccounted investment. Consequently, the addition and the penalty levied on it were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the investment in shares was recorded in the assessee's audited balance sheet and funded through bank transactions, it could not be considered an unaccounted investment. Consequently, the addition and the penalty levied on it were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society, registered under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of providing education, has a legal obligation to apply its income for charitable purposes. Therefore, it should be treated as a trust for Section 11 purposes, and its income derived from carrying out this obligation should be considered income from trust property. Consequently, exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society, registered under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of providing education, has a legal obligation to apply its income for charitable purposes. Therefore, it should be treated as a trust for Section 11 purposes, and its income derived from carrying out this obligation should be considered income from trust property. Consequently, exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied.
The ITAT deleted the disallowance on professional charges paid to non-residents, noting the AO's admission in the remand report regarding DTAA provisions. The issue of director's remuneration was restored to the AO for re-examination. The disallowance for capital expenditure was upheld due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets owned by it and used for its business purposes, even if hired out. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to net off interest paid against interest received and reduce the balance from work in progress, following its own prior decision in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/-, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid because the AO did not properly record the satisfaction note in the file of the searched person. The seized documents were also not conclusively proven to belong to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal falls within the ambit of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which prescribes a monetary limit for preferring appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 54F exemption to the Assessing Officer, directing him to give the assessee an opportunity to produce the contractor and architect for verification. The issues of interest under Section 234D and 234B were also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction not to press the appeals and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society, registered under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of providing education, has a legal obligation to apply its income for charitable purposes. Therefore, it should be treated as a trust for Section 11 purposes, and its income derived from carrying out this obligation should be considered income from trust property. Consequently, exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied.
The Tribunal held that the addition made in the hands of the assessee company could not be sustained as the peak credits from the pen drive had already been accepted as income in the hands of the director, Shri Chetan Gupta. Similar additions in group cases were deleted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing confirmations, income tax returns, and bank statements from two lenders, who were assessed to tax. For the third lender, PAN and TDS details were provided. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.