Loading ITAT cases…
684 orders · Page 4 of 14
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was therefore set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20,00,000/-, and treating pending appeals below this limit as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to substantiate its case with documentary evidence regarding fee concessions and refunds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances to directors, and therefore, no proportionate interest disallowance was warranted. It also held that the disallowance of depreciation on the land component was inconsistent with how depreciation was treated in other assessment years for the same asset.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This decision was based on a CBDT Circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs, and the current appeal fell below this limit.
The tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in questioning the agricultural nature of mushroom income, as it was a debatable issue. However, the CIT was correct in directing the AO to verify the quantum of income from mushroom cultivation.
The Tribunal set aside the AO's computation of notional rent for the vacant house and remanded it for recomputation after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to present her contentions. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of notional interest on advances to related parties to the AO for verification of the availability of sufficient funds with the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided that the excise duty refund was a capital receipt and eligible for exclusion from book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision for other issues, ruling in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had provided details of the sale and the AO did not dispute the sale itself, the AO should have calculated capital gains after allowing indexation, rather than adding the gross sale proceeds. The matter was remitted to the AO for recalculation.
The tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal indicates a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own earlier decisions in favour of the assessee for other assessment years. Following this precedent, the disallowance of interest was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's AMP expenses were incurred for its own business promotion and sales in the Indian market. It also noted that the assessee had received credit notes from the AE, which adequately compensated it for achieving an arm's length return.
The Tribunal held that MAT tax credit, including surcharge and education cess, should be allowed after loading the amount of tax with surcharge and education cess. Interest under sections 234B and 234C should be charged on the net amount of tax after reducing the MAT credit.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for Section 10B deduction, relying on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned during the relevant year, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not strike off inappropriate words and failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's undertaking to appear and the grounds raised.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the commission payment and remitted it back for admitting additional evidence. For the delayed deposit of ESI/EPF, the tribunal deleted the addition, following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking a speaking order. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to provide documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for Section 10B deduction, relying on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned during the relevant year, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This decision followed the Delhi High Court's ruling that service tax is collected for the government and does not form part of the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals and is binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of expenses does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if the claims were made bona fide and all particulars were furnished. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance PetroProducts Private Ltd. was cited.
The Tribunal held that since the property was under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent received should be reckoned as the ALV as per Section 23(1)(a), and it cannot exceed the rent prescribed under the Act. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of foreign travel expenses was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own cases, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that since the property was under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent received should be reckoned as the ALV as per Section 23(1)(a), and it cannot exceed the rent prescribed under the Act. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the department should not have filed the appeal. The circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that since the property was under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent received should be reckoned as the ALV as per Section 23(1)(a), and it cannot exceed the rent prescribed under the Act. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the property was under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the rent received should be reckoned as the ALV as per Section 23(1)(a), and it cannot exceed the rent prescribed under the Act. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of the assessee and any request for adjournment, the appeal must be dismissed in limine. The assessee may seek recall of the order if a reasonable cause for non-representation is shown.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly investigate the genuineness of the transaction and did not refer the matter to the DVO for valuation as required under Section 50C(2) when the assessee disputed the stamp duty value. The Tribunal found the fact-finding exercise unsatisfactory.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they raised a legal issue not adjudicated by the lower authorities. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on these grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT Circular that increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lacs and treated pending appeals below this limit as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D, as mandated by Section 14A(2). Since the AO failed to do so, the disallowance made by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when income is determined on an estimate basis. Therefore, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years based solely on a previously decided Supreme Court judgment, which the AO failed to consider during the original assessment, constitutes a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on the difference between the seized trial balance and the audited balance sheet. The assessee had explained that the reduction in fixed assets was due to the sale of assets and depreciation, which was reflected in the P&L account. The Tribunal found no evidence of unaccounted assets or liabilities.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when income is determined on an estimate basis. Therefore, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided insufficient opportunity to the assessee, leading to the ex parte order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not consider the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated not pressing appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this appeal was admittedly below the limit, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to verify the entries. The loose papers related to other entities (M/s. Gahoi Buildwell Ltd. and M/s. K4U Services) where the assessee was a director or partner, and these transactions were found to be reflected in the books of those entities.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of foreign travel expenses was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own cases, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that interest under section 234B(1) was correctly levied, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, as the case did not involve reassessment proceedings under sections 147 or 153A.