Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 8 of 17
The Tribunal held that the transactions in shares held in the investment portfolio are assessable under the head 'capital gain'. It also ruled that no disallowance of interest can be made under Section 14A if the assessee has a net interest income. The deletion of disallowance on DEMAT charges was affirmed, considering the CBDT clarification.
The Tribunal held that the awards received by the assessee were from Central or State Governments and thus qualified for exemption based on subsequent clarifications regarding Section 10(17A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b) as no transfer pricing adjustment was made. Therefore, the AO was not competent to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1), making the final assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, following that precedent, the current appeals were also restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found the Revenue's grounds of appeal to be vague and lacking substance. The DRP's exclusion of two comparable companies, E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd and Infinite Data Systems Pvt. Ltd., was upheld as their business profiles did not match the assessee's.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, following that precedent, the present appeals were also restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of exemption under Section 54 cannot be denied solely because the new property was purchased in the names of relatives, provided the investment was made from the sale proceeds. The assessee was justified in claiming the full benefit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 60% of the expenditure as revenue expenditure, finding that the business had commenced and the expenditure was for expansion. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal admitted the additional ground for deduction of prior period expenditure and remitted the matter to the AO. Regarding the interest expenditure, the tribunal found that investments in PSU bonds were made in earlier years and directed the AO to allow the claim. The tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeals on interest on tax refunds and club expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the payment was made by banker's cheque, not cash, thus not violating Section 40A(3). The Tribunal also agreed that the TDS claim was valid and the advance receipt was correctly treated as a liability, not income.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of processing an application for registration under Section 12AA, the CIT is not expected to delve into excessive detail. Their powers are limited to examining whether the assessee's objects are charitable and assessing the genuineness of activities. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had observed the assessee's main object was to run an educational institute. However, the CIT(E) erred by rejecting the application without adequately examining the genuineness of the objects and without following due legal procedure. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for reconsideration of the registration application as per law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided that since the assessee was not present and had not sought an adjournment, the appeal could not be pursued. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances related to interest-free loans, Section 14A, depreciation, previous year adjustments, and gratuity, relying on previous decisions and the assessee's tonnage tax benefits. However, the issue of unpaid operational charges was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition was unsustainable.
The tribunal admitted the additional ground for deduction of prior period expenditure and remitted the matter to the AO. Regarding the interest expenditure, the tribunal found that investments in PSU bonds were made in earlier years and directed the AO to allow the claim. The tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeals on interest on tax refunds and club expenses.
The ITAT noted that the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 directs the Department not to file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The Senior Departmental Representative did not press the appeal in view of this circular.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered otiose.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals based on a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered otiose.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding software development expenditure as revenue in nature. It also dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning horticulture and computer supplies, partly allowing the revenue's appeal by restoring the issue of computer supplies to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief for non-deduction of TDS, and since the tax was deposited voluntarily before the default was known to the department, there was no contumacious conduct. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the addition on duty credit scrips and allowing depreciation at 60% for computer peripherals. The cross-objections were allowed for statistical purposes, directing re-computation of Section 14A disallowance.
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 applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the TPO had passed a rectification order deleting the transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the assessment framed under Section 153A and the disallowance of depreciation were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that a CBDT circular revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs and directed withdrawal of appeals with a lower tax effect. The circular was held applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables used by the TPO, finding them functionally dissimilar or having abnormal margins. Consequently, the proposed transfer pricing adjustment was not sustained.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT at Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular also allowed for withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below this limit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a charitable non-profit organization and its activities, including charging fees and rents, do not constitute business activity. This decision was based on previous ITAT orders and a High Court ruling in the assessee's own case and similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the netting of interest paid on overdraft against interest earned on FDs is allowable as the overdraft was availed against the FDs to protect the source of income. However, the claim for short-term capital loss on pledged shares was denied as the loss belonged to the borrower, not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish any concealment of material facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The disallowance was based on figures disclosed by the assessee, and the issue under Section 14A was considered debatable.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution. For the department's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to grant working capital adjustment, finding no legal infirmity and relying on judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the hotel commenced operations on the stated date. Therefore, capitalizing interest on loans for a completed asset was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed against the CBDT's instructions. The Learned Senior Departmental Representative did not press the appeal in view of the Board Circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established rules and precedents, the appeal was treated as un-admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a proper claim before the AO by submitting a registered valuer's report, which led the AO to refer the matter to the DVO. Therefore, the capital gains should be computed based on the DVO's valuation of Rs. 21.78 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, since the assessment was completed based on the revised nil income, and no incriminating material was found during the search, the penalty could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, since the assessment was completed based on the revised nil income, and no incriminating material was found during the search, the penalty could not be sustained.