Loading ITAT cases…
581 orders · Page 12 of 12
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is allowable at 10% of the aggregate average advances made by rural branches, irrespective of the actual provision made in the books. This was based on the interpretation of the section and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no illegality or perversity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was developing an SEZ project and had evidence of skilled personnel and tender processes managed by the service provider.
The Tribunal held that if the additions on which a penalty is levied are deleted, then the penalty itself has no basis and cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be cancelled.
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 held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee was genuine and rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee is engaged in investment activities and had filed all requisite documents for the purchase and sale of shares, which were confirmed by the concerned companies in response to notices under Section 133(6). The Tribunal found that the AO had not disputed the documentary evidence or pointed out any discrepancies. The additional evidence, consisting of audited balance sheets and statements of market value of shares, supported the assessee's claim that the transactions were genuine. The Tribunal observed that in most cases, the sale price was higher than the market value, and in other cases, it was close to the market value, suggesting business considerations. Since the assessee conducted actual transactions as part of its investment activities, it was not a case of speculative loss. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had genuinely entered into purchase and sale of shares and that the loss suffered could not be treated as non-genuine. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the assessed income was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the jewelry addition, following coordinate bench decisions on identical facts. For the cash addition, the Tribunal granted further relief, reducing the addition to Rs. 1 lakh, considering the assessee's financial status and family circumstances.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to submit complete details of investments. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding certain deletions made by the CIT(A).
The tribunal held that the assessee-trust was not entitled to registration under Section 12AA as its activities were commercial in nature and not genuinely charitable. The CIT(E)'s rejection of the registration application was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, and following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that no fee under Section 234E was leviable as the challan-cum-statement was filed immediately after depositing the tax, and there was no delay. Consequently, interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted. Interest under Section 201 was deleted as no order holding the assessee as 'assessee in default' was passed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own prior decisions and the CIT(A)'s orders in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years. The Tribunal found the issue to be identical and covered by previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without properly considering the AO's objections regarding the genuineness of the transactions. The fact that notarized agreements lacked notary register entries further supported the AO's doubts.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled under MAP, as confirmed by the DCIT and a previous Tribunal order in the assessee's own appeal. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer incorrectly sought approval from the Additional CIT under Section 151(2) for issuing a notice under Section 148 after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year. The proviso to Section 151(1) mandates approval from the Commissioner/Chief Commissioner in such cases.
The Tribunal held that the incentive payments were contractual and incurred for business purposes, supported by agreements and TDS. Similarly, hospitality expenses were deemed reasonable and supported by agreements and invoices, with no evidence of excessiveness presented by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal had a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit and that the Senior Departmental Representative did not press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proving that the disallowed expenses were incurred for earning interest income.
The Tribunal directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude certain comparables and grant working capital adjustment. It also remanded the issue of TDS disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was correct in deleting the disallowance. The non-discrimination clause in the India-US DTAA prevented the AO from invoking Section 40(a)(i) when a resident would not be liable for TDS on similar payments to a resident.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of electric repair and maintenance expenses, and car running and telephone expenses, finding them unjustified. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of an addition related to a loan, finding that the assessee had proven the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that computer peripherals like switches and routers are eligible for depreciation at 60% as they form an integral part of the computer system. Regarding TDS, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances, finding that payments to the Airport Authority of India were not subject to Section 194C and other payments were either reimbursed or had TDS deducted.
The Tribunal held that cash seized prior to June 1, 2013, can be adjusted against advance tax liability, as the relevant amendment is prospective. Therefore, the seized amount should be treated as advance tax for calculating interest.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 was invalid as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied. The inappropriate words were not struck off, making the notice vague.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income and not for adjustments made to book profit under Section 115JB, especially when no tax evasion occurred. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the jewelry addition, following coordinate bench decisions on identical facts. For the cash addition, the Tribunal granted further relief, reducing the addition to Rs. 1 lakh, considering the assessee's financial status and family circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the amended circular was applicable to the present case and that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal. 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 appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.