Loading ITAT cases…
523 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Tribunal upheld the net profit rate of 0.15% for commission income, following its previous decisions in similar cases of group concerns. The estimation by the Assessing Officer was thus set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the net profit rate of 0.15% for commission income, following its previous decisions in similar cases of group concerns. The estimation by the Assessing Officer was thus set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,40,000/- as the assessee failed to provide substantiating material.
The Tribunal found that the AO made erroneous factual findings regarding the bank account ownership and failed to properly verify the documents submitted. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition without independent verification.
The Tribunal upheld the net profit rate of 0.15% for commission income, following its previous decisions in similar cases of group concerns. The estimation by the Assessing Officer was thus set aside.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A prevents claiming expenditure relatable to exempt income. Since the assessee claimed no expenditure, the provision was not applicable.
The Tribunal noted that similar disallowances in other assessment years were upheld by the Tribunal, restricting the disallowance to 2% of 20% of cash expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition for unexplained cash deposits to the peak balance of Rs. 3,67,000/-. It also directed the AO to admit and examine the claim for setting off the business loss against short-term capital gains.
The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining third-party bills for certain expenses in the film industry. However, considering the unverifiable nature of some expenses, the disallowance was reduced to 5% of the total cash expenses.
The Tribunal held that the charges deducted by the banks are not commission as there is no principal-agent relationship. The arrangement is on a principal-to-principal basis for facilitating payments, akin to bank charges.
The Tribunal held that the sale of movie rights did not materialize as the agreement was cancelled and the consideration was returned. Therefore, the revenue authorities were incorrect in taxing the transaction in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), it should be allowed as a deduction under Section 43B. This is in line with the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Apex Court.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it contravened the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed issue was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider the reconciliation statement and other explanations provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2007-08, ignorance of the new electronic TDS filing procedure constituted a reasonable cause for the delay, thus setting aside the penalty. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessee's explanations were not considered sufficient to establish a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal noted that the rectification petition filed by the assessee could impact the issues before the Tribunal. Therefore, all issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering the rectification application.
The Tribunal held that no valid transfer of property occurred under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as the MOU was unregistered and possession was handed over for a limited purpose. Therefore, capital gains could not be brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2007-08, ignorance of the new electronic TDS filing procedure constituted a reasonable cause for the delay, thus setting aside the penalty. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessee's explanations were not considered sufficient to establish a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method using old data and by bifurcating the international transaction. The matter was restored to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no valid transfer of property had taken place as contemplated under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as the MOU was unregistered and possession was handed over for limited purposes. Therefore, the capital gains could not be taxed.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2007-08, ignorance of the new electronic TDS filing procedure constituted a reasonable cause for the delay, thus setting aside the penalty. For AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, the assessee's explanations were not considered sufficient to establish a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that no valid transfer of property occurred under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as the MOU was unregistered and possession was handed over for a limited purpose. Therefore, capital gains could not be brought to tax.