Loading ITAT cases…
717 orders · Page 6 of 15
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on bank FDRs and savings accounts is attributable to the business activities of providing credit facilities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT Delhi Bench decision with similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the book value and market value of the building did not constitute undisclosed income and did not warrant denial of Section 11/12 benefits. It also found that the AO had not properly investigated the source of donations and had not invoked relevant sections like Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order regarding the downward revaluation of assets, citing that the issue was covered by High Court judgments. However, the assessee was allowed consequential depreciation on capitalized consultancy charges.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular's instructions are binding on the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular's instructions are binding on the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when the statements did not directly implicate the assessee's transactions, were unsustainable. The assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order solely on the ground that it was not passed under Section 153C, as the seized document did not belong to the assessee. Regarding the deletion of STCL, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when the statements did not directly implicate the assessee's transactions, were unsustainable. The assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that if the AO does not make any addition on the issue for which reassessment was invoked, they cannot make additions on other issues. This was based on the principle that the reasons for reassessment must survive.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered adjustments for under-utilization of capacity in the comparables. The issue was restored to the TPO for verification of the assessee's working on comparables, with directions to seek information under Section 133(6) if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified in the CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as it was supportive.
The Tribunal held that the property was a long-term capital asset, following its own previous decisions for the assessee. It also directed the AO to consider the cost of acquisition as per earlier years' orders.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This was based on a jurisdictional High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of free treatment to EWS patients and that the payments to group concerns did not necessarily indicate a lack of charitable intent. Therefore, the withdrawal of registration was not justified.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. It also allowed the claim for foreign exchange loss as a revenue expenditure and deleted the disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the Department. The appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to verify the fee payment and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the AO's failure to verify basic facts like the date of return and income declared. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on discrepancies and a lack of application of mind.
The Tribunal restored the issue of intra-group services to the TPO for examination of rendition and supporting evidence. The disallowance under Section 40A(ia) was directed to be deleted, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that for insurance companies, income computation is governed by Section 44 and the First Schedule, overriding other provisions like Section 14A. Previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the Tribunal and High Court supported this view.
The Tribunal clarifies that the original order's findings, which resulted in the assessee's appeal being partly allowed, will apply mutatis mutandis to the other four similar appeals. This is due to identical facts, circumstances, and nature of transactions.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 applies to all pending appeals. Since the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was below the enhanced monetary limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that certain old stock might be valued below cost due to changing fashion. Therefore, it reduced the addition to Rs. 5 lacs on an ad hoc basis, considering the totality of facts.
The Tribunal clarifies that the original order's findings, which resulted in the assessee's appeal being partly allowed, will apply mutatis mutandis to the other four similar appeals. This is due to identical facts, circumstances, and nature of transactions.
The Tribunal clarifies that the original order's findings, which resulted in the assessee's appeal being partly allowed, will apply mutatis mutandis to the other four similar appeals. This is due to identical facts, circumstances, and nature of transactions.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the prevailing CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal clarifies that the original order's findings, which resulted in the assessee's appeal being partly allowed, will apply mutatis mutandis to the other four similar appeals. This is due to identical facts, circumstances, and nature of transactions.
The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order regarding the downward revaluation of assets, citing that the issue was covered by High Court judgments. However, the assessee was allowed consequential depreciation on capitalized consultancy charges.
The Tribunal held that once the CIT(A) admitted the assessee's valuation report, the AO should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2). Since this opportunity was not given, the case was remanded.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of license fees, holding it as revenue expenditure based on High Court precedent. It also allowed the appeal concerning TDS on lease line charges and directed the AO to grant credit for TDS. The grounds related to interest and penalty were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided that non-cash receipts and accrued interest, which were not actually received in cash, should be reversed from the gross receipts. This adjustment is necessary to correctly determine the income available for application under Section 11(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs should not be filed. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit, they were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 54 of the Income Tax Act does not require a direct nexus between the sale proceeds of the old asset and the funds used for acquiring the new asset. The claim for exemption was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the municipal limits of Sohna had changed, and the AO's reliance on a later notification was incorrect. The AO's assessment of the land's distance from the municipal limits was also questioned. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was based on relevant facts.
The Tribunal held that the final transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,10,82,596 was 3.86% of the operating cost of the manufacturing segment. As this was less than the +/- 5% safe harbor provided under Section 92C(2) of the IT Act, no adjustment was warranted.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. Since the tax effect in this case was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that according to CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lacs should not be filed. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit, they were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. It also allowed the claim for foreign exchange loss as a revenue expenditure and deleted the disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the penalty order was time-barred as it was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 275. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that penalty under section 271C requires contumacious conduct, which was not established.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was made without any fresh tangible material and was based on a mere change of opinion. The original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3), implying the AO had already applied his mind to the facts.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on capital assets is allowable as application of income for charitable institutions, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The claim of depreciation is considered a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions regarding monetary limits for appeals. The appeal was therefore liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment should be made on notional interest on outstanding receivables as the taxpayer is a debt-free company. It also held that the taxpayer is entitled to depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals.
The Tribunal held that simply because a property was not let out due to certain reasons does not automatically lead to the inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's estimation of ALV without ascertaining the property's condition and without credible material does not justify the penalty.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circulars. The assessee's cross objection was dismissed as withdrawn.
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.