Loading ITAT cases…
469 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that approval under the STP scheme is not equivalent to the approval required for Section 10B deduction, following the Delhi High Court ruling. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 10A.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) for additions related to the denial of Section 12A registration because the registration was subsequently restored by the ITAT. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO lacked jurisdiction to levy penalty for additions made by the CIT(A) in enhancement proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the legal expenses, though not allowable as revenue expenditure, should be added to the cost of shares as cost of improvement, thereby recomputing the capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars, as the claim was based on a misunderstanding of the law. Following precedents, the Tribunal decided that the penalty was not leviable in such circumstances.
The Tribunal held that income from the amenities agreement is taxable under 'Income from Other Sources', not 'Income from House Property'. It also ruled that municipal taxes are not deductible from 'Income from Other Sources'.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. Following a CBDT circular, which mandates that no appeal should be filed if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10 Lacs, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty related to the denial of Section 11 exemption because the assessee's Section 12A registration was later restored by the ITAT. Furthermore, the penalty for additions made by the CIT(A) himself was invalid as the AO lacked jurisdiction to levy it.
The Tribunal held that income from the amenities agreement is taxable under 'Income from Other Sources', not 'Income from House Property'. It also ruled that municipal taxes are not deductible from 'Income from Other Sources'.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance. It relied on its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had decided identical issues in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's claims regarding doubtful debts and remuneration in the consequential order. Therefore, the appeal filed against the Section 263 order had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance. It relied on its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had decided identical issues in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of their transactions, relying on statements and seized documents indicating accommodation entries. The addition was reduced from 2.5% to 2% of the sales.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's plea regarding the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) and the supporting evidence of tax payment by the deductees. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified as it was based on survey findings and the assessee's statement, not solely on the statement. However, the addition of 50% of the gross profit was reduced to 20% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of business loss and the valuation of stock had not been adequately dealt with by the lower authorities. Therefore, both the assessee's and the revenue's appeals were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the forward contracts entered into by the assessee were integral to its export business and constituted hedging transactions, not speculative ones. Therefore, the loss arising from the cancellation of matured forward contracts was allowable as a business loss.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and not on any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view that income from the sale of 'ownership lands' should be assessed as business income due to frequent sales and associated expenses. It also confirmed that business expenses related to these land dealings were allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of their transactions, relying on statements and seized documents indicating accommodation entries. The addition was reduced from 2.5% to 2% of the sales.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s view that the assessee is a cooperative society entitled to deduction on credit facility profits. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding interest income, holding it attributable to business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal following a CBDT circular that set monetary limits for filing appeals. The total demand in the case was below the prescribed limit for appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of their transactions, relying on statements and seized documents indicating accommodation entries. The addition was reduced from 2.5% to 2% of the sales.
The Tribunal held that software license costs and expenditure for computer parts replacement are revenue in nature, following its own previous decisions. It also held that payments to the regional office were not royalty, thus not requiring TDS, and deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the loss on conversion and valuation of stock was genuine and supported by evidence, and there was no intention to create an artificial loss. Furthermore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a change in the charge from furnishing inaccurate particulars to concealment of income.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds to provide interest-free advances. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that no nexus was established between borrowed funds and the interest-free advances.
The Tribunal held that the ALV should be determined based on the municipal ratable value, especially for vacant properties. The AO's rejection of municipal valuation without cogent material was not upheld.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had given multiple opportunities, the adjournments were short, and the assessee's conduct in not appearing was also not ideal. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the confirmations filed for the first time before the Tribunal needs examination by the Assessing Officer. The assessee was not condemned unheard.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The CBDT circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that while the jurisdictional High Court ruled that transaction charges to stock exchanges are fees for technical services requiring TDS, an exception was made for earlier years due to the contentious nature of the issue and the fact that tax might have been paid by the stock exchange. Therefore, the disallowance was not to be made if the assessee could show the tax was paid by the payee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,75,000/- for furniture investment was based on presumption and deleted it. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 1,82,309/- for hardware was deleted as the assessee provided evidence like a cash memo and ledger account.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to furnish evidence in support of his claim, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine it. The assessment was framed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. This circular was applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT instructions for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and to ensure the assessee is heard, the matter should be re-examined. Due taxes must be levied, and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was an investor and not a trader in shares, considering her primary profession and the nature of gains from a single scrip. The income from share transactions should be treated as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee admitted to earning commission between 0.02% and 0.10%, the Assessing Officer's estimation of 0.50% was excessive. To end the litigation, the addition was restricted to 0.20%.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot directly invoke Rule 8D without first examining the assessee's claim regarding expenses incurred for earning exempt income and recording dissatisfaction with cogent reasons. Disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment of Rs. 57,245/- was not sustainable as the assessee had explained the difference. The purchases from two other parties were also held to be genuine based on invoices and cheque payments.
The Tribunal held that a CBDT circular prescribing a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT is binding on the revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default if the recipients have declared the income and paid taxes. The AO was directed to verify this fact. However, interest under section 201(1A) is leviable till the date of payment of taxes by the deductees.
The Tribunal held that lease rent income from properties held for earning rental income should be assessed as income from house property, following Supreme Court and its own precedents. It also upheld the deletion of addition on account of suppressed closing stock.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasonableness of the quantum of gifts and the sale of jewellery. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that income from PMS should be treated as STCG, not business income, based on consistency with previous years and judicial precedents. However, losses disallowed under Section 94(7) due to dividend stripping were upheld.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be calculated only on investments yielding dividend, not all investments. It also held that PMS fees incurred for share transactions are deductible for computing capital gains/losses.
The Tribunal held that income from PMS should be treated as STCG, not business income, based on consistency with previous years and judicial precedents. However, losses disallowed under Section 94(7) due to dividend stripping were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) by the DIT(E) was invalid. The Tribunal reasoned that the DIT(E) could only cancel registration if the activities of the trust were not genuine or not carried out in accordance with its objects. The judgment found no material to suggest a change in the assessee's objects or that its activities were not in line with them. The Tribunal clarified that the proviso to Section 2(15), which deals with income from trade, commerce, or business exceeding a certain limit, is relevant for granting exemption under Section 11, not for cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3). Therefore, the mere fact that receipts exceeded the prescribed limit did not automatically render the institution non-charitable for the purpose of registration cancellation. The Tribunal set aside the DIT(E)'s order and directed the restoration of registration. For the assessment year 2009-10, the Tribunal, considering that the registration was restored, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the exemption claim under Section 11 afresh, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the revenue authorities. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified for the unsecured loan addition as the assessee had established the identity of creditors and received loans through banking channels, and the AO did not prove the loans were fictitious. However, for the excess bank balance, concealment of income was proved, making the assessee liable for penalty on that amount.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT circular prescribing monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular, which applies retrospectively, states that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed.