Loading ITAT cases…
665 orders · Page 4 of 14
The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative before the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding unsecured loans, and no further inquiry was warranted by the AO based on the available material. Regarding sales and purchases, the difference pointed out by the Pr. CIT was due to accounting treatment of tax, which was already inquired into by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as not maintainable because the issues had already been decided by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated a crucial jurisdictional ground regarding the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on specific grounds.
The Tribunal acknowledged the moratorium under IBC and the supremacy of the IBC. It noted that appeals should be filed by the IRP if decided by the committee of creditors, and any order passed would be ineffective during the moratorium.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. The circular was applicable to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-cooperative before the CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on fixed deposits used as margin money for bank guarantees, in connection with setting up business assets, is a capital receipt. This receipt should reduce the cost of the asset rather than being taxed as revenue.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. The CBDT circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs and applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs are not maintainable. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circulars were binding on tax authorities and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to the low tax effect. The CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals were applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Regarding the primary issue of the addition of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- under section 68, the Tribunal noted that in the first round, the matter was restored to the AO with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim that the share application money belonged to genuine, existing share applicants. In the second round, the assessee produced directors of the share applicant companies who confirmed the investment was made from their own funds, supported by documentary evidence like bank statements showing transactions via account payee cheques. The Tribunal found that the assessee had succeeded in substantiating its claim as directed. The AO and CIT(A) could not establish that the money deposited in the share applicants' bank accounts originated from the assessee company. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lakshmi Float Glass Private Limited (supra), which dealt with similar facts where the assessee had disclosed materials like bank accounts, share particulars, and income tax details, and the deposits were by account payee cheques. The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden. Consequently, the addition in dispute was deleted. The grounds of appeal were allowed. The judgment does not explicitly discuss the findings on the addition under section 69C or the levy of interest under section 234B, but the overall result indicates these were also resolved in favour of the assessee, likely as consequential to the deletion of the primary addition.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed under Section 57 was not justified, as the law only requires the expenditure to be for the purpose of earning income, not that income must actually be earned. The CIT(A)'s order disallowing the interest was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, ITRs, bank statements, and other documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries despite the assessee's request and the availability of creditor PANs.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs.50 lakhs, the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and ambiguous as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, the assessee had disclosed all deductions, and a mere disallowance does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified due to an inadvertent calculation error in computing the indexed cost of acquisition, which was considered a human error. Additionally, the penalty notice was flawed as inappropriate words were not struck off.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-estimate the commission income at 35 paise per 100 paise, and deleted the addition based on VAT returns. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-estimate the commission income at 35 paise per 100 paise, and deleted the addition based on VAT returns. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-estimate the commission income at 35 paise per 100 paise, and deleted the addition based on VAT returns. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-estimate the commission income at 35 paise per 100 paise, and deleted the addition based on VAT returns. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order cancelling the penalty. It was held that penalty cannot be levied when an appeal on a substantial question of law is admitted by the High Court, and that the assessee had a bona fide belief regarding the education cess provision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It was held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee during the year.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act by not providing reasons for the decision and not adjudicating the merits. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal, following its own precedents for earlier assessment years, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction after verifying the loan amount used for the property and the interest paid. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be preferred.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) invoked Section 249(4)(b) without establishing the factual position. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the deemed rental income, stating that vacancy allowance under Section 23(1)(c) is not available if the property was never let out. For the jewellery addition, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the unexplained jewellery by considering that some jewellery belonged to the assessee's parents.
The tribunal noted that the CBDT circular No. 17/2019 applies to pending appeals and clarifies that appeals with tax effect below the monetary limit should be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and ambiguous as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, the assessee had disclosed all deductions, and a mere disallowance does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the payment for exhibition stalls was in the nature of rent and thus covered under Section 194-I, as the assessee failed to provide evidence of a contract for services. The Tribunal also held that the payment for advertising boards was not a mere reimbursement of expenses, and TDS was deductible under Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and ambiguous as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Furthermore, the assessee had disclosed all deductions, and a mere disallowance does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which is applicable to pending appeals, decided to dismiss the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's finding on foreign exchange gains/losses, rejecting the assessee's claim for risk adjustment due to lack of data. However, it allowed the appeal regarding notional interest on receivables, following the Delhi High Court's ruling that no interest adjustment is warranted for a debt-free company.