Loading ITAT cases…
581 orders · Page 8 of 12
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal on Section 14A, restoring the AO's order but directing credit for the amount voluntarily offered by the assessee. The appeal regarding stock valuation was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's explanation had several discrepancies and lacked substantiation, the lower authorities had failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the genuineness of the transactions with the supplier. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for further investigation.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that a significant portion of the amount represented cheques not presented before the year-end and the remaining part related to genuine purchases. The AO's addition was made without proper application of mind to the available evidence.
The Tribunal held that conveyance of immovable property by a General Power of Attorney constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The Revenue was given liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had already examined the claims during the original assessment and applied his mind. On merits, the Tribunal found that the disallowances were not sustainable based on High Court decisions and previous orders.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000. Since the tax effect in these appeals was admittedly below the limit, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000. Since the tax effect in these appeals was admittedly below the limit, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
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. It was also noted that the case did not fall under any of the exceptions mentioned in the subsequent amendment to the circular.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the case back to the TPO after the Pr.CIT's order for de novo assessment. Consequently, the AO was directed to pass a fresh draft assessment order after referring the issue to the TPO, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal followed its previous orders for similar assessment years, holding that the assessee's activities were not for profit and thus eligible for exemption. It also ruled that Section 40(A)(ia) was not applicable to exempt income and that depreciation is allowable under Section 11(6).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not request an adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the case back to the TPO after the Pr.CIT's order for de novo assessment. Consequently, the AO was directed to pass a fresh draft assessment order after referring the issue to the TPO, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's action under Section 263 was illegal as the AO had made inquiries and the assessment order was not erroneous. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 263 were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court's decision which held that a literal interpretation of Section 54F should be preferred, disallowing exemption when the new residential property is acquired in the name of a third party.
The Tribunal held that conveyance of immovable property by a General Power of Attorney constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 54 can be claimed for more than one residential property, citing previous ITAT and High Court decisions. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption for the second residential property as well.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in sustaining the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence, and the low income of the investor companies was not a sole criterion to doubt creditworthiness, especially when bank statements and confirmations were provided.
The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds are available, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(iii) to the extent of such funds. The Tribunal also noted that processing fees on the loan were allowed as deduction. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of interest-free funds not utilized for investments.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circular. The Revenue was given liberty to file miscellaneous applications if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's action under Section 263 was illegal as the AO had made inquiries and the assessment order was not erroneous. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 263 were quashed.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, held that the amount received was a capital receipt and not interest income. Therefore, it was not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which states that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application for revival if the case fell under amended provisions.
The Tribunal held that hedging transactions are not speculative transactions under Section 43(5). It also ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted for non-deduction of TDS on these payments, allowing the deduction in the current year.
The Tribunal held that hedging transactions are not speculative transactions under Section 43(5). It also ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted for non-deduction of TDS on these payments, allowing the deduction in the current year.
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 found to be binding on tax authorities and applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that hedging transactions are not speculative transactions under Section 43(5). It also ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted for non-deduction of TDS on these payments, allowing the deduction in the current year.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 153A could not be made without any incriminating material found during the search. Relying on the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, the Tribunal found that the statement relied upon by the AO was not recorded during the search and thus not incriminating material.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Department should not file appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. The Senior DR did not press the appeal in light of this circular.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's order on disallowances lacked proper reasoning and remitted the matter back for a speaking order. It allowed the inclusion of service tax in presumptive income calculation based on a High Court ruling, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal against applying Section 44BB to HOEC contract revenue.
The Tribunal held that hedging transactions are not speculative transactions under Section 43(5). It also ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted for non-deduction of TDS on these payments, allowing the deduction in the current year.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merit. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee was directed to appear without adjournment.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order of the Tribunal had already set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the entire addition. Therefore, the penalty levied on the now non-existent additions had no basis.
The Tribunal held that the assessee (deductee) is entitled to interest under Section 244A. However, the period of delay attributable to the assessee in filing its return and claiming the refund would be excluded.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's order on disallowances lacked proper reasoning and remitted the matter back for a speaking order. It allowed the inclusion of service tax in presumptive income calculation based on a High Court ruling, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal against applying Section 44BB to HOEC contract revenue.
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 appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions listed in the amendment to the Circular.
The Tribunal held that if expenses incurred during the trial run are capitalized, then the corresponding income earned during the same period should also be treated as capital in nature and reduce the capital cost. The AO's action of adding the income as revenue was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates withdrawal or not pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, was applicable to the present case. Therefore, the Department should not have filed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Revenue was bound to withdraw appeals where the tax effect was less than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal should have been withdrawn by the Revenue.