Loading ITAT cases…
171 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal set aside the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the AO for verification of whether recipients included the income and paid taxes. The addition for delivery charges was deleted as it was made on an ad-hoc basis without specific defects being pointed out.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by passing the rectification order under Section 154 without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently treated such transactions as business in its books and in earlier assessment years, which were accepted by the Revenue. Following the consistent stand of the assessee and the principles laid down by CBDT circulars, the loss was to be treated as business loss.
The Tribunal held that a litigant must not only file an appeal but also prosecute it diligently. Since the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that transportation charges already incurred and debited to the profit and loss account, and amounts already shown as receipts, cannot be treated as receivables. The AO's reconciliation was found to be defective.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice and Rule 46A by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to file two separate appeals against the consolidated order rejecting the applications under Sections 12A and 80G. Since the appeal filed was defective, it was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that while ignorance of law is not an excuse, the penalty imposed was disproportionate given the small amount of FBT payable and the fact that it was the first year of FBT applicability. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.
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. Following the CBDT's instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed contrary to the CBDT's Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) could not apply his own method and directed the TPO/AO to re-examine the figures for a specific period using the method accepted by the ITAT in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even if the plant and machinery were not used, provided acquisition evidence was not rejected. Ad hoc disallowances without rejecting books of account are not tenable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory.
The assessee's counsel filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify whether it was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied was quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had indeed examined the F&O and capital loss details. However, regarding disallowance of expenses related to investments, a portion was confirmed while another was deleted.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even if the plant and machinery were not used, provided acquisition evidence was not rejected. Ad hoc disallowances without rejecting books of account are not tenable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had indeed examined the F&O and capital loss details. However, regarding disallowance of expenses related to investments, a portion was confirmed while another was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment for the year was completed under section 143(1) before the search, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under section 153A. Therefore, the additions were liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that appeals filed contrary to the circular are to be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal treated the appeal as un-admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of business expediency for cash payments to get cheaper rates was not tenable. The provision of Section 40A(3) mandates disallowance for payments exceeding Rs. 20,000 made otherwise than by an account payee cheque or draft, and the assessee failed to provide valid explanations or evidence to fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal found that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing both parties.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the gross profit addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and relied on relevant case laws. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding foreign travel expenses, as the assessee failed to prove it was incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the supporting documents for the interest claim were produced for the first time before it, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee's grounds related to this issue were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the case back to the CIT(A) to consider the remand report from the AO and record findings on the character of the land. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without properly adjudicating the assessee's rights. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure the assessee's rights and liabilities were properly determined after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that a trading liability cannot be deemed to have ceased to exist merely because notices to creditors were unserved or because payments were made by bearer cheques. The liability must be written off in the books of account to be considered ceased.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT. Consequently, the CIT's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that there was no proper representation before the AO and the assessee also failed to prosecute her case before the CIT-A. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the advance was adjusted against scrap sales in a subsequent year, making the addition in the current year unsustainable. Regarding the outstanding liability, the Tribunal found no cessation of liability, thus deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 10,00,000/-, was applicable retrospectively. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below this limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the profit margin at the entity level of the comparable company Sasken should be taken, not the segmental level, and directed the AO/TPO to verify the assessee's claim regarding corporate expenses. The Tribunal also allowed adjustments for working capital and risk, similar to a previous assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 10,00,000/- was applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found defects in the CIT(A)'s order, including acceptance of additional evidence against rules and an improperly issued certificate. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the limb of the section under which it is initiated. Since the notice was vague, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that losses not of a capital nature are allowable if connected to the assessee's business operations. Following precedent, it found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that blending and mixing of tea amounts to manufacturing, thus making export proceeds eligible for Section 10B exemption. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the quantum of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the upfront premium paid was in the nature of interest expenditure and was revenue in nature. It also found that the amount claimed pertained to the relevant previous year and was correctly claimed under the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal further noted that the issue was debatable and should have been addressed during the original assessment, not through rectification.
The Tribunal held that the sale of equipment with embedded software cannot be taxed as royalty in India as the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) to which the profits are attributable. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow credit for TDS based on TDS certificates, even if not reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the net interest income exceeded interest expenditure, and no interest-bearing funds were used for exempt income-generating investments. The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the working.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions varied significantly before the AO and the CIT(A), and crucial evidence was not produced during assessment. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.