Loading ITAT cases…
662 orders · Page 9 of 14
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The CIT(DR) did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order as it lacked proper discussion on the nature of payments and the relationship between the parties. Therefore, the issue requires fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of a non-eligible unit cannot be adjusted against the income of an eligible unit for Section 10A deduction. Regarding Section 14A, a part of the disallowance was confirmed, while another part was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue's Senior DR did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting certain comparables and applying arbitrary filters. It directed the TPO to re-examine the comparables, conduct a proper FAR analysis, and consider the functional compatibility, assets, and risks of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that merely making an addition does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer failed to specify which limb of the section was violated by the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute deductions under sections 80HHC and 80IA based on earlier decisions and audited accounts, allowing village development expenses as allowable CSR activities. The issue of interest on line of credit was set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the sale proceeds of the mother's inherited agricultural land. The mother had provided confirmation, an affidavit, and bank statements supporting the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment orders were deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine and confront the assessee with seized material that indicated the transactions were accommodation entries.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the concession by the Revenue's representative that the tax effect was below Rs. 20,00,000/-, and a CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment orders were deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine and confront the assessee with seized material that indicated the transactions were accommodation entries.
The Tribunal noted that the balance sheet entry was as of March 31, 2009, while the search was on July 31, 2008. The assessee needs to provide evidence that the company had sufficient cash on hand on the date of the search to explain the seized amount.
The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books was not disputed, the estimated net profit rate of 2% was excessive. Considering the assessee's past accepted net profit rates of 0.21% to 0.28%, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute income at 0.50% net profit on turnover.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the advances, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to treat 25% of booking advances as income, while allowing credit for travel agent commissions.
The Tribunal held that loss on foreclosure of loan assets is allowable as a business loss, following High Court and Supreme Court precedents. However, the claim for write-off of TDS recoverable was disallowed due to lack of proper documentation and evidence of recovery efforts. The claim for bad debts was allowed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under Section 153A are without jurisdiction if no incriminating material is found during the search, quashing such additions. Regarding Section 80HHC, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute the deduction as originally claimed.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's action regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 148, finding no infirmity. It also upheld the disallowance of capital gains exemption as the property was purchased by the assessee's father, not the assessee. The addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was sustained due to an unexplained portion of opening cash.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of foreseeable loss as it was based on estimates and not crystallized. It also upheld the disallowance of sundry balances written off as they were not in the nature of trading loss or bad debts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the license fee at Rs. 2 Crore per month, following the decisions of the ITAT, High Court, and Supreme Court in the preceding year. The Tribunal also reversed the CIT(A)'s finding that excise duty refund was a capital receipt, as the assessee had claimed it as a revenue receipt eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and to produce all necessary evidence regarding the contractors.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued on the same day the assessee's representative appeared and requested the original return be treated as a response to the Section 148 notice. This was considered an invalid notice, vitiating the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the 'bright line test' has no mandate under the Income Tax Act and cannot be used to infer an international transaction. The existence of an international transaction must be established independently.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue fresh notice to the assessee at her new address and provide an opportunity to explain her case.
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 the expenses incurred and payments made by the assessee exceeded Rs. 20,000 in each case. Therefore, these expenses were disallowable under Section 40A(3). The CIT(A)'s action of upholding the addition was deemed correct.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn by the Revenue, given the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessment orders were deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the Assessing Officer had failed to properly examine and confront the assessee with seized material that indicated the transactions were accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a proper opportunity of hearing and directed to file all required documents.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a proper opportunity of hearing and directed to file all required documents.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under Section 153A are without jurisdiction if no incriminating material is found during the search, quashing such additions. Regarding Section 80HHC, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute the deduction as originally claimed.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the seized document (balance sheet for AY 2009-10) did not relate to the assessment year under consideration (AY 2010-11) and was not proven to be incriminating. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. This was due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lac for filing appeals by the Department before the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2008.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under Section 153A are without jurisdiction if no incriminating material is found during the search, quashing such additions. Regarding Section 80HHC, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute the deduction as originally claimed.