Loading ITAT cases…
143 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was allowed on projects with built-up areas below 1500 sq.ft. and on a pro-rata basis for commercial space.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting its case. Following established precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not remit the matter for fresh adjudication but restored it to the AO for verification and consequential allowance. Therefore, there was no loss to the Revenue.
The Tribunal restored the issue of taxability of the assessee's income to the AO for fresh adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal also restored the additional ground regarding Section 11 exemption to the AO, noting that registration under Section 12AA was granted retrospectively from April 1, 2009.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was due to the Supreme Court staying the Calcutta High Court's order in a similar case, leaving the matter pending.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without pinpointing specific defects in the bills or rejecting the books of accounts. Given the steady increase in the assessee's income and the explanation for increased lorry hire charges due to diesel price rise, the disallowance was deemed arbitrary.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance on telephone expenses to 10% and allowed the travelling expenses. For coolie charges and miscellaneous import expenses, the Tribunal directed deletion of the additions, finding the disallowances to be ad-hoc and arbitrary given the audited accounts.
The Tribunal restored the issue of taxability of the assessee's income to the AO for fresh adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal also restored the additional ground regarding Section 11 exemption to the AO, noting that registration under Section 12AA was granted retrospectively from April 1, 2009.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not based on fresh tangible material and lacked a live link to income escapement. The AO also failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the classification of securities as investments in the books of account and the consistent offering of income as capital gains indicated the assessee's intention to hold them as investments, not stock-in-trade. The magnitude and frequency of transactions alone do not determine the nature of the activity.
The Tribunal noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had previously quashed the Section 263 order in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the present appeal by the Revenue was rendered infructuous and required no further adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grievance was the AO's failure to refer the matter to the DVO. Citing a jurisdictional High Court decision on similar facts, the Tribunal found that the requirements of Section 50C(2) were relevant.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs during the pre-operative period is taxable as income from other sources. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover its investments. However, the disallowance for failure to deduct TDS on unsecured loans was upheld due to lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence. The issue of carry forward of loss was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of expenses was not justified, especially when the AO accepted a significant portion of the income related to these services. The CIT(A)'s enhancement without proper opportunity was also found to be arbitrary.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without properly considering the assessee's plea. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to examine the assessee's contentions and provide an opportunity to adduce evidence.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue and that appeals filed contrary to the revised monetary limits should be dismissed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on departmental authorities. Since the loan amount from each person did not exceed Rs. 20,000, and the circular specified that penalty is attracted only for amounts in excess of Rs. 20,000, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT's revision order under Section 263 had already been cancelled by the Tribunal in a previous appeal. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were rendered non-est and null.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 10,00,000/-, applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the Department's policy.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed was contrary to the department's policy decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the assessee and decided the matter on merits. Violating natural justice in appellate proceedings renders the statutory right of appeal meaningless.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the allocation of residual costs, finding the assessee's method logical. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding bad debts, allowing verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the assessee's accounts and record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the additional disallowance made by the AO was not warranted.
The CIT(A) allowed the claim, noting the shares were acquired through amalgamation, not direct purchase, and were duly recorded in the books. The Tribunal confirmed this, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a lapse on the part of the AR should not prevent the assessee from pleading its case. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
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 the work of dismantling machinery is a works contract and not 'fees for technical services'. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the payments made to the non-resident.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for the higher studies of the director's niece were allowable as business expenditure. It noted that the employee had worked for the company for a significant period after her studies and the company had benefited from her expertise.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no interest expenditure could be disallowed as the interest income exceeded the interest expenditure, and the investments were covered by own funds. The disallowance on investment was restricted to 0.5% of the average value of investments yielding exempted income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that an appeal requires active pursuit, not just filing.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses incurred does not constitute income as it is merely getting back money already spent. The characteristics of income, as broadly understood, are not met by such reimbursement.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's absence and failure to prosecute the appeal indicated a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Following the CBDT's instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal and remove defects. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.