Loading ITAT cases…
492 orders · Page 9 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fallacy in the reasoning that the assessee had ceased business operations and disposed of assets. Therefore, the written-off CENVAT credit was not to be added back to income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the TPO's rejection of comparable companies was based on conjectures and surmises. The Tribunal found that a comparable should not be rejected solely due to a high royalty rate, referencing a Delhi High Court ruling.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no fallacy in the findings and no contrary binding decision presented by the Revenue. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not interfered with.
The tribunal held that no markup for transaction cost should be applied. However, an appropriate markup for credit rating should be applied. The matter was restored to the AO to decide the markup for credit rating.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and not pressed by the Revenue, citing CBDT circulars that set a minimum tax effect threshold for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if the circulars did not apply.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter back to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case and submit documents.
The CIT(A) found that the AO had not demonstrated that the assessee's suo-moto disallowance was inadequate or incorrect. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee's disallowance was reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 2.4 crore addition, finding no evidence linking the statement to the assessee. The issue of Rs. 6 lakhs cash was remanded to the AO for verification of the imprest account.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s disallowance based on vague assumptions was not justified. The assessee had already disallowed fees paid to the portfolio manager, and no other expenditure was evidenced.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A), the penalty proceedings, being consequential, should also be remanded. The assessee should be given an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and that this applied to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained income. Instead, it directed the estimation of profit at 25% of the difference between business receipts and total deposits, considering the assessee's taxi business.
The tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the appeal had become infructuous due to the VSVS scheme. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentation from the subscriber company, including its balance sheet showing adequate reserves. The AO's inquiry did not reveal any adverse material, and the non-appearance of the subscriber's director did not invalidate the provided statutory and income tax records.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the validity of reassessment proceedings was not bad in law. However, regarding the addition, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly considered the extent of cash withdrawals and their re-deposit to justify the cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee itself had disallowed the forward cover premium expenditure in its computation of total income. Since the assessee did not claim the deduction and the AO took cognizance of this disallowance, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on its merits. The dismissal by the CIT(A) was based on non-prosecution, not on the substantive merits of the addition.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The statement of a dummy director, not confronted to the assessee, is insufficient for addition, especially as Section 158BB provisions are not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence provided by the assessee. The matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to produce necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of CBDT Circular No. 1916, which provides for certain limits of jewellery not to be questioned, should be granted to the assessee. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted to that extent.
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 since the facts were similar to earlier assessment years and there was no change in the factual matrix, it would not interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The previous ITAT decisions, affirmed by the High Court, were binding.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The statement of a dummy director, not confronted to the assessee, is insufficient for addition, especially as Section 158BB provisions are not applicable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal if the settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal held that since the facts were similar to earlier assessment years and there was no change in the factual matrix, it would not interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The previous ITAT decisions, affirmed by the High Court, were binding.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was considered infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for direct costs, that outstanding liabilities were offered in subsequent years, and that club membership and professional fees were allowable business expenses. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that treating the expenditure as capital in nature while the corresponding receipts (including mark-up) were treated as revenue was contradictory and not legally tenable. Since the entire costs were reimbursed and offered to tax as revenue, the disallowance of these expenses as capital expenditure was incorrect.
The Tribunal dismissed the 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 assessee, as a real estate developer, was justified in following the project completion method (AS-9), which is a recognized accounting method. The impugned addition made by applying the percentage completion method was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeals were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeals were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they fell within the low tax effect limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular is binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that once the AO was informed that the basis for reopening was incorrect, his belief of escapement of income ceased to exist. Proceeding with reassessment on known wrong information renders the assessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) on account of estimated scrap value from repair and maintenance expenses was not justified. The Tribunal followed its own decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, the scope of proceedings under section 153A is limited to incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, the scope of proceedings under section 153A is limited to incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary object of providing education is charitable. It ruled that depreciation disallowed by the AO is allowable and that the assessee is entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, as its income is applied for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary object of providing education is charitable. It ruled that depreciation disallowed by the AO is allowable and that the assessee is entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, as its income is applied for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary object of providing education is charitable. It ruled that depreciation disallowed by the AO is allowable and that the assessee is entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, as its income is applied for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's primary object of providing education is charitable. It ruled that depreciation disallowed by the AO is allowable and that the assessee is entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, as its income is applied for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they fell within the low tax effect limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification. The circular is binding on tax authorities.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the 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 assessee's primary object of providing education is charitable. It ruled that depreciation disallowed by the AO is allowable and that the assessee is entitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12, as its income is applied for charitable purposes.