Loading ITAT cases…
113 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case due to the insufficient time provided. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The CIT's invocation of Section 263 was therefore justified, and the matter was to be re-examined by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had not decided the issues on merit and directed him to do so. It also allowed the foreign exchange loss claim based on a Supreme Court decision and allowed an additional ground regarding Section 80HHC deduction to be decided by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the penalty orders were deemed invalid and cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was improper. The AO had not failed to make proper inquiries, and the issue of commercial area exceeding statutory limits was not applicable as the plan was sanctioned before the amendment.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy was granted as an incentive to encourage industrial development in backward areas and not to meet the actual cost of assets. Therefore, it should not be deducted from the cost of fixed assets for depreciation. The CIT's action to substitute his view for the AO's was also deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view. The AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, as the CIT's own view on how to treat unrecorded purchases/sales was unclear.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid because the show cause notice was not signed by the CIT but by an ACIT. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty was defective as it did not specify the grounds for imposing penalty (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Therefore, the penalty orders were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the department's policy.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 require the AO to have tangible material to form a belief that income has escaped assessment. Since the AO relied on re-appreciation of existing records without any new material, the initiation of reassessment was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO to examine the other two parties. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to establish their case before the AO.
The Tribunal, considering that the assessee's books were audited and that the case was not properly represented, decided to give one more opportunity to produce the books of account before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was revenue in nature and taxable. It further held that the subsidy's value should be reduced from the actual cost of the machinery for depreciation, as per Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can only be taxed in the hands of a shareholder of the lending company, not in the hands of a concern (like the assessee) which is not a shareholder. Therefore, the order of the CIT setting aside the AO's order was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed in light of the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.
The ITAT held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below the revised limit are to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D and that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance. The AO's disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay. For the interest disallowance, the issue was restored to the AO for verification. For the gift addition, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an order passed against a non-existent entity is void ab initio. Section 292BB of the Act, relied upon by the revenue, is not applicable to revisional proceedings and cannot cure a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the loss from delivery-based transactions is non-speculative and can be set off against speculation gains. The Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as the assessee's principal business was granting loans and advances.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear and no adjournment was sought. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's revised monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 1% of the dividend income under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the revenue has the burden to prove additional investment by the assessee to invoke Section 69B. Since there was nothing on record to show the assessee made investments beyond disclosed amounts, no addition could be made based solely on stamp duty valuation.
The Tribunal held that the principle of apportioning commission and transportation expenses across all units was decided by the CIT in a prior order, and the assessee could not raise this issue again. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's alternative claim that such apportionment should only consider sales to third parties, excluding inter-unit transfers.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee as it was a statutory corporation not governed by the Companies Act. The Tribunal also ruled that interest under Section 234C was not leviable for the one-day delay in advance tax payment, as the due date was a Sunday and payment was made on the next working day, following CBDT circulars and the General Clauses Act.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view was a possible view, as it was supported by previous Tribunal decisions. The CIT could not substitute his own view merely because the department had filed an appeal against the earlier ruling.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of unexplained cash credit to the AO for re-examination in light of the prior year's assessment, noting that if the deposits are sale proceeds and withdrawals are for purchases, only profit should be taxed. For the disallowance under Section 40A(3), the Tribunal also set aside the issue to the AO to examine if the payments fall under the exceptions in Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of cash deposits as sale proceeds, which were already offered to tax. The confirmation from M/s. Atta Exports and the fact that the total sales were higher than the disputed amount indicated no double addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear for the hearing and did not file an adjournment petition. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing previous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion, as the Assessing Officer had already examined the issue during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude, considered the appeal unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 10,00,000/- and this limit applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessee's written submissions and did not pass a reasoned order as required by law. The matter was set aside and remitted back for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to establish the undisclosed purchases, it was in the interest of justice to allow him an opportunity to prove the payment through bank. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rent received for the use of terrace space for installing a mobile tower is chargeable to tax under the head 'income from house property'. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions under Section 24.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay constituted a sufficient cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and directed him to dispose of the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of electricity charges paid in cash as the assessee failed to establish exceptional circumstances under Rule 6DD. Similarly, the foreign travel expenses were disallowed as the assessee failed to prove they were for business purposes. However, the disallowance for repairs and maintenance was deleted as no specific unverifiable element was pointed out.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for not pressing appeals. Therefore, the revenue was advised to withdraw or not press the appeal.