Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as no assessment proceedings were pending when the AO referred the matter to the DVO. Relying on a Gujarat High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the AO's action to be beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) due to it being an ex parte order and a violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal by adjusting the gross profit of current and earlier years to the peak of the current year, directing the AO to use the adjusted peaks. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 153A when no incriminating material was found during the search related to the share capital. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants.
The Tribunal decided to remand the rent issue to the AO for verification with new evidence and allowed the appeal on transportation/labour charges, finding the disallowance on aggregated small payments not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s cancellation of registration was not maintainable. While donations outside India might be a point for disallowance during assessment, the CIT(E) should have focused on whether the assessee's activities were genuine and in line with its objects, not on the application of funds outside India.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a conduit for payments to third-party service providers and not the ultimate recipient of the service income. Therefore, the sums in question could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that service charges received for providing contractual services and amenities to tenants are assessable as business income, not income from house property. This was based on the separate consideration charged and the nature of services rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in getting the tax audit done. The delay was attributed to the assessee's failure to submit necessary documents to the auditor, not the auditor's fault. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the intangible asset, following its own prior ruling on an identical issue. The AO was directed to delete the addition made on account of depreciation.
The Tribunal held that advances to M/s NLBD Marketing Pvt. Ltd. were for business purposes, following a previous decision for an earlier assessment year. For M/s Phool Commercial Pvt. Ltd., partial disallowance of interest was upheld based on the CIT(A)'s directions.
The Tribunal held that only a proportionate part of salary and head office staff expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,71,900, should be capitalized for Unit-II. For the conference expenses, the Tribunal ruled that since the bill was received in the relevant assessment year and the assessee follows the mercantile system, the deduction should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 153A when no incriminating material was found during the search related to the share capital. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants.
The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for verification of payee details, citing the retrospective effect of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and relying on previous judgments. The Revenue's appeal regarding payments made between October 2009 and March 2010 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that, following Supreme Court decisions on Section 10A (analogous to 10B), brought forward unabsorbed depreciation should not be set off against the current year's profit of the eligible unit before allowing the Section 10B deduction.
The Tribunal found that the non-compliance before the CIT(Appeals) was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case on merit.
The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, treated the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000 should be withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's monetary limit for appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as no one appeared on their behalf and the notice was returned unserved. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances of commission payments due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence of services rendered and business purpose. Additions for unexplained creditors were also upheld where the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances of commission payments due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence of services rendered and business purpose. Additions for unexplained creditors were also upheld where the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances of commission payments due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence of services rendered and business purpose. Additions for unexplained creditors were also upheld where the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances of commission payments due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence of services rendered and business purpose. Additions for unexplained creditors were also upheld where the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued to regularize the voluntary disclosure made by the assessee. Since the assessee had already disclosed the income and paid taxes before the issuance of the notice, there was no concealment of income in the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the advocate's negligence. The matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding commission expenses due to lack of evidence. However, it allowed the appeal concerning supervision charges by deleting the disallowance and partly allowed the appeal on entertainment expenses by restricting the disallowance to 25%.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to sundry balances and advances. It allowed depreciation on the electric genset based on a coordinate bench decision. The Tribunal also allowed the ground regarding deemed dividend, holding that Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted as the assessee was not a substantial shareholder in the lender company.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction under Section 80IA, following its own prior rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the taxability of retention money.
The Tribunal held that since the basis for the assessment proceedings (the Section 263 order) was quashed by the High Court, the assessment order was annulled. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s enhancement to be flawed and erroneous. It noted that the AO had made an estimated disallowance, and the CIT(A) had not considered all relevant financial transactions. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance on VAT payable, attributing it to an auditor's error.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documents and a letter from the intending purchaser which were not considered by the AO. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without hearing the assessee. Since the submissions were crucial and not considered, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed had been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty order had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of 'commission' or 'brokerage' as envisaged under Section 194H, and therefore, TDS was not required to be deducted. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued to regularize the voluntary disclosure made by the assessee. Since the assessee had already disclosed the income and paid taxes before the issuance of the notice, there was no concealment of income in the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice.
The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by the assessee to the wholesale licensee, as per the State Excise Rules, were to be construed as payments made to the State Government authority or its agent. Therefore, these payments fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules.
The Tribunal held that since the AO had accepted the interest income as business income in several past assessment years and the facts and law remained unchanged, consistency must be maintained. Therefore, the interest income should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report from the AO, which stated that the assessee had explained the purchase differences with reconciliation statements and VAT returns. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition on account of gross profit was erroneous as closing stock details were available in the Tax Audit Report and the AO had not rejected the books of accounts. For carriage outward and unloading expenses, the Tribunal found the 50% disallowance to be on the higher side and reduced it to 25%.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer needs to examine if the assessee's business location was in a remote area where cash payments were unavoidable. For the interest income, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee offered it for taxation on a receipt basis, considering the assessee is an individual.
The Tribunal held that the vehicle qualified as a 'commercial vehicle' as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and the CBDT notifications. Since it was acquired and put to use within the specified period for business purposes, the assessee was eligible for 50% depreciation.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. As the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal was contrary to the department's policy and thus dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the case.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit, the appeal was filed contrary to the departmental policy.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. It cited several decisions emphasizing the need to effectively pursue an appeal.