Loading ITAT cases…
717 orders · Page 10 of 15
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as they did not wish to pursue it.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reason for rejecting the application based on the non-filing of an appeal against a previous rejection was not in accordance with the law. The absence of specific clauses in the trust deed does not bar registration, and issues regarding beneficiary clauses or discrepancies can be addressed during assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this rule.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the car, stating that its purchase in the assessee's personal name does not preclude it from being a business asset. It also deleted the addition for cash deposit, accepting the explanation of sale of an old car with supporting receipts. The addition for low household withdrawal was also deleted as no expenditure outside the books was found.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance. It noted that similar claims were allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, following the principle of consistency. The Tribunal also found no adverse material to satisfy the conditions of Section 40A(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not properly served within the limitation period and the assessment order was passed before the date of compliance. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed illegal.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and, applying the enhanced monetary limit from CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dismissed the Revenue's appeal as non-maintainable because the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the Revenue would not prefer appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange losses on forward contracts, when recognized in compliance with AS-11 and when gains from such contracts were offered to tax in prior years, are allowable. However, foreign travel expenses for family members of directors and other non-employees failed the test of commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired only a limited right to use the intellectual property for the duration of the agreement, and ownership remained with the licensor. Therefore, the expenditure was not of an enduring nature and was considered revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not appreciated all the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not appreciated all the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
For assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, no incriminating material was found during the search pertaining to those years, so additions were deleted. For assessment year 2011-12, the addition on account of commission income was confirmed at 2%.
For assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, no incriminating material was found during the search pertaining to those years, so additions were deleted. For assessment year 2011-12, the addition on account of commission income was upheld at 2%.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned penalty order and restored the penalty matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the penalty after passing the assessment order afresh, providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed ex-parte without proper opportunity and that the CIT(A) also did not thoroughly appreciate the evidence submitted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not appreciated all the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions without any incriminating material found during the search and solely on presumption. The Tribunal also found that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not justified due to lack of proper satisfaction note and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law and the addition on merits was unsustainable. The AO failed to provide evidence of the profit being credited to any of the assessee's bank accounts or appearing in her income computation.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs. As the tax effect in this appeal was below this limit, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law and the addition on merits was unsustainable. The AO failed to provide evidence of the profit being credited to any of the assessee's bank accounts or appearing in her income computation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of purchases, finding no specific defects pointed out by the AO. For the TDS disallowance, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify if the recipient had offered the interest income to tax.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction for disallowances under Section 14A and did not prove that expenses under Section 40A(2)(b) were excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, the disallowances made by the authorities below were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order without considering the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction for disallowances under Section 14A and did not prove that expenses under Section 40A(2)(b) were excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, the disallowances made by the authorities below were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 69 and Section 68 are liable to be set off against the assessee's unabsorbed depreciation and business loss. This is based on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, which clarifies that such set-off is permissible for assessment years prior to 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit. The circular was applicable to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the issue of TDS on lorry hire charges was not a mistake apparent from the record and required elaborate reasoning. Therefore, the AO could not assume jurisdiction under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that payments for transponder charges do not fall under the definition of royalty as per the Income Tax Act and the Indo-US DTAA. Amendments to domestic law cannot alter the interpretation of treaty provisions.
The Tribunal held that as per 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 CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the tax authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and then dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was done because the tax effect in the appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit specified by the CBDT.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the issues to the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the issues afresh after examining the additional evidence and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that proper opportunity and consideration of evidence were lacking. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order without proper service of notice under Section 148 and without providing requested evidence, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be sustained at the second appellate stage if a substantive addition has already been made in the hands of the donor. The Assessing Officer was directed to ascertain the finality of the addition in the donor's case before confirming any addition against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question (prior to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment), the primary liability to deduct tax at source under Section 195 was on the payer. Therefore, interest under Section 234B was not leviable on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted thorough inquiries and investigations. The complaints leading to the revision proceedings were found to be false, frivolous, and baseless.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.