Loading ITAT cases…
492 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to circular transactions, finding that the profit disclosed by the assessee was sufficient. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had demonstrated manufacturing activities and excise compliance.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the addition of Rs. 2,23,34,990/- was deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty on that amount stands deleted. Furthermore, the penalty on the remaining addition of Rs. 7,18,907/- was quashed as the penalty notice did not specify the charge, making it void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to circular transactions, finding that the profit disclosed by the assessee was sufficient. For Section 80IB, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had demonstrated manufacturing activities and excise compliance.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's disallowance under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was unwarranted as the audit report did not explicitly mention any disallowance of expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the CPC was directed to be deleted.
The tribunal held that compensation received for delays in making a profit-making apparatus functional is a capital receipt and not taxable. It also held that expenditure on gifts to boost business, given the magnitude of the assessee's operations, could be allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and that all facts might not have been brought on record. In the interest of substantial justice, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that interest paid on outstanding purchase consideration is akin to interest on borrowed capital and thus allowable as a deduction under Section 24(b). It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and is not to be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income. It also confirmed the deletion of the addition for advances written off, treating it as a business loss incidental to business activities.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on outstanding purchase consideration is akin to interest on borrowed capital and thus allowable as a deduction under Section 24(b). It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and is not to be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was reopened solely based on the cancellation of the Section 12A registration. Since a previous Tribunal order had restored the registration, the basis for reopening no longer existed. Therefore, the assessment order could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was reopened solely based on the cancellation of the Section 12A registration. Since a previous Tribunal order had restored the registration, the basis for reopening no longer existed. Therefore, the assessment order could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on outstanding purchase consideration is akin to interest on borrowed capital and thus allowable as a deduction under Section 24(b). It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and is not to be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is in the nature of compensation itself and is not taxable as interest income. The Supreme Court's decisions in Ghanshyam (HUF) and other cases were relied upon.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and investments were part of its banking business. The amortization of premium was also allowed, following jurisdictional High Court and ITAT precedents.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on outstanding purchase consideration is akin to interest on borrowed capital and thus allowable as a deduction under Section 24(b). It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and is not to be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal 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. As the tax effect in this case was below the specified limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action of setting aside the assessment order and directing further investigation was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT did not properly consider the assessee's objections and that the revision was initiated based on audit objections and the AO's proposal, rather than the PCIT's independent satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material is a legal ground that can be raised at any stage. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide this additional ground.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenditure does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The tribunal held that compensation received for delays in making a profit-making apparatus functional is a capital receipt and not taxable. It also held that expenditure on gifts to boost business, given the magnitude of the assessee's operations, could be allowed.
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 accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing all grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. The decision was based on the Tribunal's prior ruling in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on outstanding purchase consideration is akin to interest on borrowed capital and thus allowable as a deduction under Section 24(b). It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and is not to be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal found that the AO's enquiry was based on wrong facts, as the purchase of shares had been decided in a prior AY. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not claimed exemption under Section 10(38) but paid tax on LTCG. Furthermore, the AO failed to provide an opportunity to be heard on other additions.
The Tribunal found that the comparable company, M/s. Killick Agency and Marketing Ltd., was not appropriate for benchmarking. The Tribunal directed that this comparable be deleted from the list.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained because the AO had dropped penalty proceedings for the same set of facts in a subsequent assessment year. Furthermore, the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB. This decision followed precedents from the Hon'ble Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sobha Developers Ltd. vs. DCIT.
The assessee opted to settle the tax dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020'. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which had ruled against the Revenue on similar issues in prior assessment years. The High Court had held that Section 14A was not applicable when no exempt dividend income was earned and depreciation was allowable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding non-receipt of notices. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.
The ITAT set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the ITSC order, which had accepted the assessee's explanation for share capital introduction through inflated purchases. Therefore, no further addition was warranted on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the ITSC order, which had accepted the assessee's explanation for share capital introduction through inflated purchases. Therefore, no further addition was warranted on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically invoked Section 14A without proper dissatisfaction with the assessee's working and without establishing a nexus between expenditure and exempt income. It also directed the AO to decide the MAT credit issue and allowed the deduction of education cess and secondary & higher education cess.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO had no evidence other than the FIR, which was disproved by a police inquiry and affidavits from both parties. The assessee's actual expenses were also found to be significantly lower and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide confirmation from the lender and proof of the source of funds for the Rs. 29,00,000/- loan. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that mere banking transactions are insufficient to prove creditworthiness or genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains, including de-husking paddy, qualify for deduction under Section 80IB(11A) as an integrated business aimed at enhancing food security. Disallowances under Section 14A and prior period expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue of whether current year losses can be set off against income under Section 115BBD is a debatable one. As per Section 115BBD(2), no expenditure or allowance is deductible in computing such dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's integrated activities of handling, storage, and transportation of food grains qualify for deduction under Section 80IB(11A). It also directed deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, stating no interest-bearing funds were used for investments, and deleted the disallowance of prior period expenses.