Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adjusting the interest amount granted under Section 244A against the refund of taxes. It also directed the AO to recompute the interest payable under Section 244A up to the date of the actual refund, following previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the AO's contradictory reasoning and failure to reject the books of accounts under Section 145(3) did not justify an ad hoc disallowance of expenditure. The assessee's consistent increase in net profit was also noted.
The Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) considering only dividend-bearing investments. The AO was also instructed to reduce the already disallowed administrative expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s directions for proportionate disallowance and considering only dividend-bearing investments. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of commodity trading loss back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unsustainable as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the director of HHBRF. The confirmation from the director that no money was refunded to the assessee fortified the claim.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the combined peak credit balance of the two undisclosed bank accounts, not the sum of individual peak balances. The contention that the accounts were joint and should be considered proportionately was rejected due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was cancelled by the jurisdictional ITAT, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) had no basis. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was cancelled.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider a relevant precedent.
The Tribunal held that Section 28(iv) is not applicable to benefits received in cash, and thus deleted the addition made by the CIT(A). For the second appeal, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of undervaluation of closing stock to the AO to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate the value in its books. However, the disallowance of expenditure on unsubstantiated gunny bag purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue should be dismissed in limine as it falls under the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which directs withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs before the ITAT.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the verification of commission payments. It also dismissed the ground related to hotel expenses, stating they were business-related and not personal. The payment to lawyers was also held to be eligible for deduction. The issue of bad debts was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the approval of the gratuity fund deed variations. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the restructuring expense claim as per law, following previous decisions.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, stating it was mistakenly filed. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unsecured loans and partner's remuneration, finding no infirmity. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on income from house property, restoring the AO's order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate net profit at 8% based on previous years' trends and the assessee's declared profit, finding no infirmity in the order.
The Tribunal held that the reliance on the DLF Commercial Project Corporation case was misplaced as TDS was deducted in that instance. However, it found merit in the argument regarding the retrospective applicability of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to M/s. Sunshine Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. was deductible, following its own order for the earlier assessment year. The agreement between the parties and the services rendered were considered valid.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, following the High Court's view that penalty under Section 271E cannot be levied if the genuineness of the transaction is not doubted. Since the authorities below did not doubt the genuineness of the cash repayment between husband and wife, the penalty was deemed unwarranted.
The tribunal restored issues related to grounds 2-4 to the AO for verification of tax payment by payees, following the Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages judgment. Ground 6, concerning kerosene oil expenses, was dismissed as the assessee failed to substantiate the expenses with proper bills and vouchers.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and estimating profit without pointing out specific defects. It also upheld the deletion of the cash embezzlement loss based on a Supreme Court ruling and directed the AO to verify the truck insurance charges.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing loan confirmations, IT returns of creditors/donors, and bank statements. The Tribunal deleted the additions, following precedents where the AO of the assessee should have inquired with the AO of the creditor/donor before making additions.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available, it can be presumed that investments were made from these funds, even if a loan was also taken. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power to restore the matter to the AO with specific directions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the actual bad debt written off and the correct claim for provision for bad and doubtful debts.
The Tribunal held that the advance received by the assessee was not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. It relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision where similar advances given for collateral security were not treated as deemed dividends.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the verification of commission payments. It also dismissed the ground related to hotel expenses, stating they were business-related and not personal. The payment to lawyers was also held to be eligible for deduction. The issue of bad debts was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that no evidence was presented to the AO showing the clients had actually deducted the damages. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the estimation of gross profit being excessive. It decided to restore the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and non-speaking. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the ex parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year, concerning the same project. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction was upheld.
The Tribunal held that material supplied by the contractee/government should not be included in the gross contractual value for determining profit under Section 44AD. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-calculate the profit based on the net contractual value.
The Tribunal found that the additions/disallowances were made ad-hoc and without proper consideration of merits. It noted that an addition was made under Section 69 for expenses already recorded in the books, which is incorrect. The assessee was also prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before lower authorities.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the case and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objection to the reopening by passing a speaking order, as mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd., renders the reassessment order bad in law.
The Tribunal held that club membership fees and expenses incurred for employees are considered pure business expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal followed a Supreme Court decision on this matter.
The Tribunal held that club membership fees and expenses for employees are considered pure business expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. They followed a Supreme Court decision on this matter.
The CIT(A) reduced the estimated commission income to 0.26% of the turnover, finding it justifiable based on a similar case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the AO's estimation of 0.50% was not justified.
The Tribunal held that club membership fees and expenses for employees are considered pure business expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, following a Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal also noted the department's inconsistent treatment of this issue in previous and subsequent years.
The tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the order was considered bad in law and non-est.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2004-05. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition by relying on that Tribunal order.
The CIT(A) reduced the addition, considering that the assessee earned a small commission on accommodation entries. The Tribunal upheld this, noting that the Revenue had accepted similar lower commission rates in other cases and the assessee's own case for a subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT-A violated Rule 46A of the IT Rules by admitting new evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was not maintainable as the assessee had not derived any benefit of deduction for the liability shown. The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable because the assessee company was not a shareholder in the lending company, a fact that could not be controverted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular is binding on the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the case, dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, following established precedents.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the issue raised in proceedings u/s. 263 had been verified by the Assessing Officer with no further disallowance. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the case, dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, following established precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in prosecuting their appeals as they failed to appear on the date of hearing and did not file any adjournment petitions. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.