Loading ITAT cases…
248 orders · Page 5 of 5
Following the CBDT Circular, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal of the revenue was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that, as per the CBDT circular, the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as not pressed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the tax effect not exceeding the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The tribunal held that arm's length price adjustments can be made for interest-free advances to an associated enterprise. However, the specific benchmarking of the interest rate was to be determined by the division bench.
The Tribunal held that taxing the same income twice (once as stock and again as profit on sale) is not justifiable. It confirmed the addition of estimated profit on sale of undisclosed stock at 11.2%.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that the peak amount of deposit in an undisclosed bank account should be considered as undisclosed income. The issue was remanded to the AO to consider the peak credit of Rs. 6,47,491.37.
The Tribunal held that given the fall in turnover and the assessee's claim of declining profits, a profit estimation of 6% of gross receipts would meet the ends of justice. This revised estimation replaced the CIT(A)'s figure.
Following the CBDT Circular No.3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide evidence of sales outside the books. The assessee's explanation for adjusting the opening stock due to stock shortage was plausible, and the addition based on gross profit was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without hearing the assessee or considering their written submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This defect renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions, including note sheets and revised reconciliation, and that the AO's investigation was not thorough enough to insist on individual bills given the circumstances.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conduct the independent and detailed investigation as mandated by the CIT's revisional order. The AO's failure to follow up on unanswered summons and draw adverse inferences without further action was noted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions, including note sheets and revised reconciliation, and that the AO's investigation was not thorough enough to insist on individual bills given the circumstances.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as not pressed. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the tax effect not exceeding the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This defect renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was bad in law, considering the business expediency and payments made through agents. The disallowance of conveyance allowance was restricted to 25% of the claimed expenditure.
The Tribunal, following the CBDT circular, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the policy decision of the Department as per the circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matters back for fresh disposal on merits.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. The law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding undisclosed receipts and PPF interest. The issue of foreign remittance was restored to the AO for fresh decision, following a previous order. The ground related to Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matters back for fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were overlooked by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matters back for fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had only addressed the alternative plea of the assessee and not the main issue regarding the applicability of Section 194J versus 194C. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the main issue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding depreciation on designs and computer peripherals, and the provision for commission, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground related to ALP adjustment. The assessee's appeal for deductions on gratuity and superannuation funds was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the foreign allowances were received outside India for services rendered outside India by a non-resident, and therefore, were not taxable in India as per Section 5(2) of the Act. The Tribunal followed previous judicial precedents on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that adding the entire amount of disputed purchases was not justified and directed the addition of gross profit at the assessee's declared rate. For labour charges, only a specific amount was to be disallowed as per the AO's remand report. The cash deposits were explained by prior withdrawals and should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that expenses related to agricultural income tax and other professional services should be allowed as deductions from the composite income. For amalgamation expenses, it directed a deduction of 1/5th under Section 35DD, with the remainder deferred.
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 capital introduction was partly explained by the transfer of capital from a previous business and gifts from family members, whose creditworthiness was established. The Tribunal also found that the bank loans and unsecured loans were adequately supported by documentation and reflected in the creditors' balance sheets.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts and the addition to closing stock valuation were baseless and unwarranted. It emphasized that the LIFO method was consistently followed and accepted by the revenue, and the absence of an item-wise register alone was not sufficient grounds for rejection.
The Tribunal held that the loan was received in an earlier assessment year and not the year under appeal. The AO had conducted proper inquiries, including recording a sworn statement, and taken a conscious decision. Therefore, the revisionary order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that filing an appeal requires active prosecution, not just submission. Since the assessee failed to appear or provide reasons for absence, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment to ALP should only be computed for sales made to AEs, not for sales made to both AEs and non-AEs. The calculation of the adjustment to ALP at Rs 3,71,40,235/- was not disputed.
The Tribunal held that the land was contributed at cost and was treated as 'current asset' or 'work in progress' by both the assessee and the firm, thus Section 45(3) was not applicable. The Tribunal also held that the revaluation of fixed assets by the firm did not result in any taxable income for the partners.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular was also held to be applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of share application money to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the revenue's ground for statistical purposes. Regarding the interest disallowance, the Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) to cover the advances to sister concerns, no disallowance of interest was warranted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding depreciation on designs and computer peripherals, and the provision for commission, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground related to ALP adjustment. The assessee's appeal for deductions on gratuity and superannuation funds was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's Circular No. 3/2018, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/- and applied retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The explanations provided by the assessee for the cash deposits were found to be unconvincing and lacked sufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer had properly considered the facts, including the treatment of TCS collected from buyers and the clerical error in the revenue recognition note. The order of the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the transportation expenses were for re-handling of coal as per a supplementary work order and that the assessee had complied with the requirements of Section 194C(6) and (7) by obtaining PAN and filing Form 26Q. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition. The assessee had provided loan confirmations, bank statements, and ledger accounts, and the loan creditor companies were group companies whose assessments had been completed without adverse inferences regarding these loans.
The Tribunal held that while an installation PE existed for the GOK project, income from offshore supply of equipment and offshore services could not be attributed to it. For AMC services, it was held that no PE was created and the services did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the DTAA.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) related to the Zenith Textile Division, whose profits were exempt under Section 10A. Therefore, the enhanced profits due to disallowance would also be exempt, resulting in no addition to total income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence of technical glitches. However, to ascertain the facts and in the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the exact time of uploading the return.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's order might be considered erroneous for not considering the revised return, it did not cause prejudice to the revenue as all necessary details were on record and examined. The twin conditions for invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 were found to be absent.