Loading ITAT cases…
924 orders · Page 7 of 19
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the provisions for expenses were ascertained liabilities and the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was an actual, deductible expenditure. The adjustments to book profit were also deemed correctly deleted.
The Tribunal held that advance commission received for purchases accounted for in the next financial year should not be taxed in the year of receipt. It also held that amounts written off as bad debts from debtors were allowable as per Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decision for the immediately preceding assessment year. It found that the assessee's activities, including receiving sponsorship and ticket sales, were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal noted the consistent absence of the assessee and their representative. Following established legal principles, the Tribunal decided that the appeal could not be prosecuted due to non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival if the case fell under amended provisions.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2)(b) applies to expenses and not to income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking this section to estimate profit on receipts.
The Tribunal held that dividend income derived by a cooperative society from another cooperative society is fully exempt under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed the consistent view taken in earlier assessment years for the same assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. The assessment was completed under Section 115JB (MAT) at Rs. 40,16,318/-, which was higher than the income computed under normal provisions (a loss of Rs. 36,95,21,018/-). The assessee had paid tax of Rs. 26,84,222/- as per MAT provisions. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT vs. M/s Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543, which held that if the assessment is made under Section 115JB and the additions/concealment had no role or were irrelevant in the computation under Section 115JB, then penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed as it did not lead to tax evasion. The Tribunal found that the assessee had simply made a claim regarding deduction under Section 80HHC, which, in the context of MAT assessment, did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the prevailing CBDT circular which stipulated a monetary limit for appeals. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Department should not have filed the appeal as it was covered by the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide the issue on merit.
The CIT(A) found that the transfer of shares occurred in the succeeding year, not the year under consideration. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding, noting no income from share transfer was offered by the assessee for the year in question.
The Tribunal held that both the assessee and the Revenue erred in law regarding the TDS difference. The assessee wrongly claimed credit for prepaid taxes, and the Revenue wrongly added amounts not assessable in the year. The matter was restored to the AO for re-computation based on the assessee's cash method of accounting and correct TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular clearly instructs the department to withdraw or not press appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the pen-drive entries lacked evidentiary value and could not be directly linked to the assessee-company. Relying on previous orders concerning the director and sister concerns, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the pen-drive entries lacked evidentiary value and could not be directly linked to the assessee-company. Relying on previous orders concerning the director and sister concerns, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure based on previous precedents. For depreciation, it held that water pumps and electrical fittings are part of building cost, but water treatment plants are not.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of deferred revenue expenditure based on previous precedents. For depreciation, it held that water pumps and electrical fittings are part of building cost, but water treatment plants are not.
The Tribunal allowed the expense of Rs 53 crores, finding that the assessee had discharged a lawful liability. Regarding the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal found that the assessment was framed on a wrong premise and without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal allowed the expense of Rs 53 crores, finding that the assessee had discharged a lawful liability. Regarding the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal found that the assessment was framed on a wrong premise and without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 153C.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a hearing. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record reasons before issuing the notice under Section 148, which is a mandatory requirement. Consequently, the notice and the proceedings initiated under it were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was not valid in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The additions made under Section 68 were also deleted as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the Transfer Pricing Officer had already deleted the addition through a rectification order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) and present their case properly. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a fair hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was done in light of a CBDT Circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to the ITAT. The Circular also allowed for retrospective application to pending appeals.
The tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54F for the investment made in one of the flats, as the two flats were not adjacent and could not be converted into a single unit. However, the exemption is not allowable for the second flat.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was not valid in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The additions made under Section 68 were also deleted as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions.
The Tribunal held that the decline in profit ratio was supported by plausible reasons like increased depreciation and financial charges. Since the books of account were not found defective and were fully quantified, the AO should not have rejected the book results without rejecting the books themselves.
The Tribunal held that the AO invoked Section 14A and Rule 8D mechanically without recording his dissatisfaction with the assessee's computation. The AO failed to provide cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim, which is a prerequisite for invoking Rule 8D.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% of expenses for personal use was justified, considering the assessee's turnover. The CIT(A) correctly provided set-off for the amount already disallowed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of share capital was made without relying on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no addition could have been made in the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as the AO had already initiated proceedings under section 271AAB. Furthermore, Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the addition of share capital was made without relying on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no addition could have been made in the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the addition of share capital was made without relying on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, no addition could have been made in the assessment year.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside and remanded, the penalty proceedings were not sustainable. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the quantum issue was decided.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was illegal and liable to be quashed. It found that the AO had examined the issue of capital gains and that the sale of the entire business as a composite unit likely constituted a slump sale under Section 50B, not subject to Section 50C as directed by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, were set aside and remanded, the penalty proceedings were not sustainable. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the quantum issue was decided.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings were not sustainable at this stage. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision after the quantum issue is decided.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of a CBDT Circular revising 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 the non-service of notice was attributable to the assessee's conduct and that their absence indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.