Loading ITAT cases…
530 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue in light of the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Bharat Hotels Ltd.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to furnish financial statements and complete bank statements of the two companies, and the Assessing Officer was directed to examine them and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support its claim for deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not produced any contradictory evidence.
The Tribunal held that the fee under Section 234E is mandatory for late filing of TDS statements and cannot be waived on grounds of procedural delay or no loss of revenue. The levy is intended to compensate for the additional work burden on the department.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Revenue did not press it, and it was also found to be not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit by CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities and applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the department was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit specified in the CBDT Circular. The Circular applies to pending appeals.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the defective appeal as they had not received the assessment order and notices were not delivered due to a change of address. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal held that employees of the State University are treated at par with State Government employees for exemption purposes. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the claimed exemption for gratuity and leave encashment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE Tax Treaty due to its extensive control and operational involvement in the Indian hotels, which were at its disposal. The Tribunal also ruled that the revenues earned were taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars revised the monetary limit for appeals, making the current appeal not maintainable due to low tax effect. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach for re-institution if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to rectify defects. The appeals were dismissed for being defective and non-prosecuted.
The Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to rectify defects. The appeals were dismissed for being defective and non-prosecuted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circulars. The Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged that a mistake had occurred in its previous order. It recalled the order and allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's absence and lack of proper authorization for their representative. The grounds of appeal regarding natural justice and the merits of the additions were not considered.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars revised the monetary limit for appeals and clarified its applicability to pending cases. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that an inadvertent claim of expenditure does not automatically amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Considering the assessee was in liquidation and the error was unintentional, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if investments generating exempt income are held as stock-in-trade, citing a Supreme Court decision. Regarding Section 36(1)(viii), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim based on its consistent method of calculation.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if investments generating exempt income are held as stock-in-trade, citing a Supreme Court decision. Regarding Section 36(1)(viii), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim based on its consistent method of calculation.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if investments generating exempt income are held as stock-in-trade, citing a Supreme Court decision. Regarding Section 36(1)(viii), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim based on its consistent method of calculation.
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 Departmental Representative also did not press the appeal.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not validly served on the assessee as it was initially issued on a wrong address and the subsequent service by affixation was done without proper satisfaction and adherence to procedural requirements. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during search. Since no such material was found at the assessee's premises, the assessment order is bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54, which restricted deductions to properties within India, was effective from AY 2015-16. Therefore, for AY 2013-14, the benefit of Section 54F could be extended to a residential house purchased outside India.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed to dismiss the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. The Assessee also withdrew their cross-objection.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, which is contrary to law and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that similar appeals for other assessment years were remanded back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a final opportunity to present her case. Following this precedent, the current appeal was also remanded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE Tax Treaty due to its extensive control and operational involvement in the Indian hotels, which were at its disposal. The Tribunal also ruled that the revenues earned were taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Applying the same reasoning, the Tribunal found no merit in denying the deduction claimed under sections 11 & 12 of the Act on the balance income.
The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the books of accounts without proper reasons and that the CIT(A) contradicted material placed before them. The disallowance of commission was deemed incorrect as it was based on an estimation of gross profit, which would amount to a double addition.
The Tribunal held that the security deposit could not be adjusted against unrealized rent as litigation was pending and the tenants had also sued for its recovery. It also found that the assessee was engaged in business activities, making the disallowance of depreciation and interest on car unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that interest expense on borrowed funds utilized for purchasing properties that form part of the inventory is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The purchase of inventory is considered a continuation of the business activity.
The Tribunal, following the directions of the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessments were completed and no incriminating material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessments were completed and no incriminating material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals set by the CBDT. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the payment of bank guarantee charges to a scheduled bank is not covered under TDS provisions, particularly Section 194H or 194J. The disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objection was permitted to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE Tax Treaty due to its extensive control and operational involvement in the Indian hotels, which were at its disposal. The Tribunal also ruled that the revenues earned were taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and unsustainable in law. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after appreciating the evidence and providing the assessee with an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE Tax Treaty due to its extensive control and operational involvement in the Indian hotels, which were at its disposal. The Tribunal also ruled that the revenues earned were taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that both issues were covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee, including High Court affirmations and dismissed SLPs. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The ITAT allowed the full construction cost as per the registered valuer's report, rejecting the CIT(A)'s 75% estimation. It dismissed the claim for commission due to lack of evidence. The Section 54F exemption issue was remanded to the AO for fresh verification of funding sources.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction, finding that notice was duly served and no objection was raised within the stipulated time. The issue of TDS non-deduction was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the applicability of Section 194C(6). Disallowances on expenses were upheld due to lack of evidence, and higher depreciation was allowed on cranes.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and this was applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.