Loading ITAT cases…
484 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for appeals, has statutory force and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee provided tangible explanations supported by documents like Fard Jamabandi, Intkal, and an affidavit for gifts. The AO's objection to the 'huge' receipts was not substantiated by evidence of falsity.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing a CBDT circular that restricts appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs. The Senior DR did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of LTCG as income, finding that the share transactions were sham and arranged to evade tax. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the availability of funds for share purchase.
The CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as there was no new information and the AO's action amounted to a review or change of opinion. The Tribunal upheld this decision.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 20,00,000/- is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this case was below the limit and no exclusion clauses applied, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the Section 14A disallowance, stating that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, following its own prior decisions and Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the repayment of a loan originally taken to fulfil one of the objects of the trust amounts to an application of income for charitable and religious purposes. This finding was based on the explicit clarification in CBDT Circular No. 100 dated 24.01.1973, which addressed this specific issue. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that for the Assessment Year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer himself had allowed a similar claim for repayment of loan as an application of income under Section 143(3). Considering both the CBDT circular and the precedent set in the previous assessment year, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the sum of Rs. 82,66,627/- as application of income for repayment of loan. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal had been dismissed by the ITAT, and the CIT(A) had also deleted an addition of Rs. 1 crore. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for giving effect to the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal held that since the section 263 proceedings were quashed, the subsequent orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were invalid. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show cause notices issued under Section 274 did not clearly specify the grounds for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the entire penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was a legal issue going to the root of the assessment. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication and also restored other grounds for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 154 cannot be invoked to make additions on debatable issues. The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition made under Section 154 by following established legal precedents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show cause notices issued under Section 274 did not clearly specify the grounds for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), thus violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the entire penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the Section 14A disallowance, stating that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, following its own prior decisions and Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial acceptance of the valuation for capital gains purposes, as determined by revenue authorities under the Stamp Act, became a proved fact. The Tribunal found that the case laws cited by the assessee were distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that to render substantial justice, the additional evidence filed before the CIT(Appeals) should be considered. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after allowing a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening were invalid as they were recorded mechanically without verifying the assessee's disclosed sale of land and claim for exemption in the original return. Therefore, the reopening proceedings under Section 147 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were initiated after the original assessment was completed, the proceedings under Section 153A were not maintainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were initiated after the original assessment was completed, the proceedings under Section 153A were not maintainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for Section 35ABB expenses and club membership fees, finding them covered by previous decisions. However, the issue of business loss was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification due to discrepancies in the return.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion expenses are revenue in nature as they are incurred to enhance sales and do not provide enduring benefits. It also ruled that bank guarantee commission is not subject to TDS disallowance under Section 40A(ia) due to specific notifications and legal interpretations.
The Tribunal held that estimating business profit cannot cover additions made under Section 68. The deletion of Section 68 additions by the CIT(A) without proper examination was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were initiated after the original assessment was completed, the proceedings under Section 153A were not maintainable. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that being a pure agriculturist, there was no liability to file an income tax return or pay advance tax. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after considering documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that advertisement and sales promotion expenses are revenue in nature as they are incurred to enhance sales and do not provide enduring benefits. It also ruled that bank guarantee commission is not subject to TDS disallowance under Section 40A(ia) due to specific notifications and legal interpretations.
The Tribunal held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts and is a business receipt under Section 28(iiic). Therefore, it must be included in the turnover for calculating profit at 8% under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 30,19,500/- made under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE. Since the basis for the penalty no longer existed, the penalty was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's revision order was not sustainable. The CIT introduced new issues not mentioned in the show cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the CIT's view on the banana sales income was not a 'possible view' that the AO could not have taken.
The Tribunal held that telecommunication expenses and job training expenses should be excluded from both export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a normal business transaction and not an accommodation entry, as the advance was received for a specific assignment and subsequently refunded. The evidence did not support the claim of accommodation entries.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the Revenue's appeal was below the Rs. 20 lakh limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Consequently, the appeal was held to be not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order did not confirm service of notices. Therefore, the dismissal was not justified, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) file.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide a bona fide explanation for the undisclosed income, and voluntary disclosure does not absolve the assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts and is a business receipt under Section 28(iiic). Therefore, it must be included in the turnover for calculating profit at 8% under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the legal grounds raised by the assessee concerning the reassessment proceedings and the notice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) incorrectly averaged the GP rates of only two years, ignoring five years of data. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a GP rate of 2% for recomputation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning software expenses, directing the AO to re-examine the issue after verifying bills and vouchers. Other grounds were either dismissed or allowed based on previous tribunal orders.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to a CBDT circular regarding tax effect limits. The assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals, which were also dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to a CBDT circular regarding tax effect limits. The assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals, which were also dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to a CBDT circular regarding tax effect limits. The assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals, which were also dismissed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal, following established precedents, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if they wished to pursue the appeal further.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets purchased by a charitable institution, even if the expenditure was treated as application of income, for assessment years prior to April 1, 2015. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without deciding the issue on merit, which violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the case should be decided on merits, and the affidavit produced during appellate proceedings should be considered.
The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order was passed before the assessee's reply was allegedly filed, and the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits. Therefore, both lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the CIT(A) on a stay application is not appealable before the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee's appeal against the dismissal of the stay petition was not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the decision of the Delhi High Court, following previous ITAT rulings and considering the appointment of a receiver.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable due to a CBDT circular regarding tax effect limits. The assessee was permitted to withdraw its appeals, which were also dismissed for statistical purposes.