Loading ITAT cases…
924 orders · Page 4 of 19
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's instruction not to press the appeal. The revenue did not object to the dismissal.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not present for the hearing and had not sought an adjournment. Therefore, it was concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that additions based on presumptions and conjectures are not sustainable. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions as there was no concrete evidence to justify them, especially since the property sale was later cancelled.
Since the basis for the penalty (quantum addition) was nullified, the penalty order was also set aside. The matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the corpus fund received by the assessee society should be treated as a capital receipt and not as income. It also directed the AO to re-examine the depreciation claim and the addition of interest income.
The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) provided a proper basis for estimating the net profit rate. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding unexplained cash deposits and advances not returned, finding the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the MTM loss was an actual business loss arising from transactions through recognized brokers and exchanges. It also agreed that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as there were no expenses incurred in relation to exempt income, particularly no interest on borrowed funds for investments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not properly considered the assessee's objects and evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in terms of 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 held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, the Revenue should not have filed or should have withdrawn the appeal due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C of the IT Act regarding documents found during a search is rebuttable. Since the MOU for Rs. 20 crores was between Sh. Devender Kumar and M/s Newage Infrabuilders P. Ltd., and not directly with the assessee, the addition of Rs. 20 crores to the assessee's income was not justified without further evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) required further examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal due to non-representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not properly considered the assessee's objects and the documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also held that carry forward and set off of losses is permissible for charitable trusts, again relying on High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing and did not admit additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals. The circular stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limit should be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is part of enhanced compensation and not taxable as interest income, following Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. For the cross-objection, the Tribunal reduced the estimated Gross Profit rate from 1.5% to 1.25% considering past results and the increasing turnover with decreasing GP rate.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not discussed the assessee's submissions and had passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed failed to address specific issues related to the calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, including the treatment of interest and prior period expenditure. The Tribunal held that non-adjudication of issues is a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. However, the Revenue can file a miscellaneous application for revival if the case falls under amended provisions.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc disallowance could be made without specific instances of inflated or capital expenditure. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned during the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 20 Lakhs. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue was directed to withdraw or not press such appeals.