Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 10 of 17
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Department should not have filed the appeal due to the low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of a coordinate bench in its own case for earlier years. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the adjustment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that a lump sum payment for a long-term lease of land is not in the nature of rent under Section 194-I. Furthermore, even if considered rent, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as the recipient had offered the income and paid tax on it.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 220(2) can only be charged if there is a default in payment of a valid demand. Since the demand arose for the first time with the order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s direction, interest could not be levied for the period prior to that order.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the six assessment years for reassessment under Section 153C must be calculated from the date of recording the satisfaction note. Since the assessment year 2007-08 was outside this period, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither filed a paper book nor appeared for the hearing. Following established precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the land sold was not agricultural land at the time of sale as its use was changed to non-agricultural by the SDM prior to the sale deed registration. Therefore, it qualified as a capital asset.
The Tribunal held that the exclusion of certain comparables by the DRP was justified. For another comparable, the AO was directed to verify the employee cost percentage before exclusion.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals should be dismissed in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs and applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons provided for the assessee's absence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It found that the assessee had declared income under Section 41(1) for the written-off creditors and that the purchases made in earlier years were genuine, supported by VAT and Excise authorities' acceptance.
The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons provided for the assessee's absence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had produced sufficient documentary evidence at both the assessment and appellate stages to prove the ingredients of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the identity of the investor, its creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. The AO did not conduct further inquiries on the documents filed by the assessee and failed to scrutinize them adequately, making additions based on irrelevant suspicions. The AO did not make inquiries from the investor's banker or its Income Tax records. The valuation report filed by the assessee supported the issuance of shares at a premium, which was below the fair market value. The Tribunal found no material to rebut the assessee's explanation. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 6 crores was set aside and deleted. Regarding the Rs. 12 lakhs addition, the Tribunal found no material on record to justify the alleged payment of commission for accommodation entries, setting aside the orders of the authorities below and deleting the addition. The ratio is that once an assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 by proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, and the Revenue fails to bring cogent material to rebut it, the addition cannot be sustained. The assessee is not required to prove the source of source.
The Tribunal held that Section 71(2) of the Income Tax Act does not restrict the option of setting off business loss against capital gains. The assessee's computation and carry forward of business loss were found to be in consonance with the Act.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that interest on loans for building construction and land advance should not be disallowed as the expenditure was incurred in prior years and accepted as such by the revenue. It also held that application software purchased for specific use and not of permanent nature should be treated as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the assessee had agreed to the additions before the AO. The assessee also failed to provide proper justification for the expenses.
The Tribunal held that since the addition leading to the penalty was deleted by the ITAT and upheld by the High Court, the penalty cannot be sustained. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was explained by prior withdrawals which were properly accounted for in the cash book. It also held that the conversion of unsecured loans to gifts was not taxable under Section 28(iv) or Section 41(1) as no interest was paid and it did not represent business income.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on a CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither filed a paper book nor appeared for the hearing. Following established precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the limit, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 70% of purchases, finding the issue covered by a coordinate bench's order. It also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding foreign exchange fluctuation loss, citing a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal set aside the issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication. The issue of set-off of brought forward losses was also directed to be verified and decided afresh.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no 'reason to believe' of income escaping assessment. The decision in the co-owner's case, where similar reopening was quashed, was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 7 lakh, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by the Tribunal in a prior appeal, the penalty could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the manner of conducting business is for the assessee to decide, and revenue authorities can only verify if expenditure is for business purposes. Since the commission agent was not a related party and services were rendered, the disallowance was reversed.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment and the addition of Rs. 16 lakhs to the assessee's income. The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gift transactions.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Revenue should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal in light of this circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 directs the Department not to file appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Revenue's appeal was therefore not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of warranty services addition to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. The addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA, which mandates using circle rates for property sales below circle rate, was not applicable to the assessment year. However, due to lack of details from the assessee, the lower authorities had to estimate profit.
The Tribunal set aside the issues related to transfer pricing adjustments and interest disallowance to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication. The issue of set-off of brought forward losses was also directed to be verified and decided afresh.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the CBDT's instructions. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for its decision and did not give the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.