Loading ITAT cases…
242 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Following precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of freight charges was not warranted as there was no contract between the assessee and truck owners, and TDS under Section 194C was not attracted. Regarding partner's salary, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the remuneration was within the limits prescribed by Section 40(b)(v).
The Tribunal held that the addition made on an issue not mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening, and without making any addition on the original issue, is not sustainable in law. The addition was deleted based on High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on a technical ground of delay, after a long period, was arbitrary and a violation of natural justice. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's decision in SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, with liberty to the assessee to move for recalling the order if reasons for non-compliance are provided.
The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment provision to the AO for adjudication as per the Supreme Court's decision. Regarding Section 14A disallowance for book profit computation under Section 115JB, the Tribunal held it's not automatically imported and remanded the matter to the AO for computation as per Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2).
The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment provision to the AO for adjudication as per the Supreme Court's decision. Regarding Section 14A disallowance for book profit computation under Section 115JB, the Tribunal held it's not automatically imported and remanded the matter to the AO for computation as per Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's main object in its Memorandum of Association clearly indicated that letting out property was its business. Therefore, the income from letting out the premises should be assessed as business income, not income from house property.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had complied with Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence after the Assessing Officer examined it and provided a remand report. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not use the additional evidence in adjudicating the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing supporting case laws, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as they were filed contrary to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. For the Assessee's appeals, the Tribunal found no basis for the estimation by the AO and CIT(A) and decided to estimate the income at 8% of the turnover, considering the growth in business volume and compromise on profit margins.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law because they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalties.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of the revenue should be dismissed in limine as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 due to low tax effect, without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange loss and bad debts, in this case, were part of the operating income/expenses as they directly related to the assessee's business. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount self-disallowed by the assessee, and depreciation for book profit calculation should be as per the Companies Act.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was bad in law because the competent authority (JCIT) had not initiated the penalty proceedings. The AO had initiated the proceedings, but the JCIT only issued a notice for hearing, not a show-cause notice for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that the profit estimated by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) at 5% is reasonable. This was because the assessee failed to produce supporting documents for verification, rendering the tax audit report insufficient for scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO had consciously decided not to make disallowances after thorough examination and being satisfied that payments were below the TDS threshold. The CIT's assumption that the AO erroneously omitted disallowances was without basis.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as they were filed contrary to CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. For the Assessee's appeals, the Tribunal found no basis for the estimation by the AO and CIT(A) and decided to estimate the income at 8% of the turnover, considering the growth in business volume and compromise on profit margins.
The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment provision to the AO for adjudication as per the Supreme Court's decision. Regarding Section 14A disallowance for book profit computation under Section 115JB, the Tribunal held it's not automatically imported and remanded the matter to the AO for computation as per Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's main object in its Memorandum of Association clearly indicated that letting out property was its business. Therefore, the income from letting out the premises should be assessed as business income, not income from house property.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of serious interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that the gratuity amount received, being below Rs. 10 lakhs, was not taxable due to an amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This bonafide belief constituted a reasonable cause for not including the gratuity in the return.
The Tribunal held that transactions between husband and wife for family purposes, like property construction, are not commercial and do not attract Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Following the Karnataka High Court's decisions, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear on multiple occasions. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed in limine as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 due to low tax effect. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the issue in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed in limine based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which directs withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of the revenue should be dismissed in limine as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 due to low tax effect, without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Circular No. 21/2015 is binding on tax authorities and applies retrospectively to pending appeals. As the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's project, being an irrigation project, qualified as an infrastructure facility and was not hit by the substituted Explanation to Section 80IA. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the six-month limitation period stipulated in Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had complied with Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence after the Assessing Officer examined it and provided a remand report. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not use the additional evidence in adjudicating the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law because they did not clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal cancelled the penalties.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of labour charges, finding no material to suggest the claim was bogus. It also directed deletion of the addition for cash deposits, holding that the assessee had explained the source through sale of jewellery and a reconciled cash flow statement.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Following precedents from the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty.
The Tribunal restored the issue of leave encashment provision to the AO for adjudication as per the Supreme Court's decision. Regarding Section 14A disallowance for book profit computation under Section 115JB, the Tribunal held it's not automatically imported and remanded the matter to the AO for computation as per Explanation 1(f) to Section 115JB(2).
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange loss and bad debts, in this case, were part of the operating income/expenses as they directly related to the assessee's business. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount self-disallowed by the assessee, and depreciation for book profit calculation should be as per the Companies Act.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as the Revenue is bound by the CBDT circular. The merits of the case were not considered.