Loading ITAT cases…
523 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. No prejudice was caused to either party by the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the deduction under Section 80IB(10) as the project was a slum rehabilitation project and the time limits specified in the proviso to the section were not applicable. The Tribunal followed its own previous order on a similar issue.
The Tribunal held that transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange are for facilities provided, not technical services, and therefore, TDS is not deductible under Section 194J. The AO's order and the CIT(A)'s confirmation were quashed.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was done beyond the prescribed period of four years without any new tangible material. It was found that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of material facts during the original assessment.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had produced bills and evidence for construction activities, and payments were made through cheques. The ad-hoc disallowance by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and any supporting material, confirmed the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The appeals were disposed of based on the available record.
The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and any supporting material, confirmed the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The appeals were disposed of based on the available record.
The Tribunal held that strategic investments made in domestic companies must be excluded when computing disallowance under Section 14A. Following the precedent set in Suzlon Energy Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments.
The Tribunal decided most grounds in favor of the assessee, following previous consistent rulings and Supreme Court decisions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% of general expenses was reasonable. The reopening of assessment was also upheld as there was tangible information indicating escaped income.
The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and any supporting material, confirmed the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The appeals were disposed of based on the available record.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% of general expenses was reasonable. The reopening of assessment was also upheld as there was tangible information indicating escaped income.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty on a portion of unsecured loans and the entire share capital addition as these were deleted in the quantum appeal. For disallowed expenses, the penalty was reduced proportionally to the reduced disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% of general expenses was reasonable. The reopening of assessment was also upheld as there was tangible information indicating escaped income.
The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee and any supporting material, confirmed the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The appeals were disposed of based on the available record.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible flats, even if some flats exceeded the area limit, based on previous judgments allowing proportionate deduction. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 10% of general expenses was reasonable. The reopening of assessment was also upheld as there was tangible information indicating escaped income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of GP rate, finding the AO's estimation not borne out from the records. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the Section 54G deduction, allowing investments made within one year before and three years after the transfer.
The Tribunal held that the DRP was justified in its approach and that the AO's rejection of comparables was illogical and inconsistent. Regarding bad debts, the Tribunal found that the DRP had rightly deleted the addition as the written-back amounts were already offered for taxation.
The Tribunal restored issues related to bogus expenditure and cessation of liability to the AO for fresh adjudication. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on disallowance of expenses to the extent of 10% and allowed the claim for long-term capital gains. The addition on account of cash credit from a sister concern was set aside and restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as there was no tangible material to suggest escapement of income, and it was merely a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the disallowance of expenses was not examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that the payment made by the assessee was on account of commercial expediency to maintain its business relationship with Indian insurance companies. Therefore, the loss incurred was allowable as a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of GP rate, finding the AO's estimation not borne out from the records. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the Section 54G deduction, allowing investments made within one year before and three years after the transfer.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty, following a coordinate bench's decision which held that the department could not prove the assessee's claim was not bonafide. The facts were found to be materially the same as in the prior case.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not warranted as the entry represented credit sales for which payment was subsequently received by cheque, as evidenced by the bank statement. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that gains from shares held for up to 30 days should be treated as business income, while gains from shares held for more than 30 days and up to twelve months should be treated as short-term capital gains. The AO was directed to recompute accordingly.
The Tribunal restored the leave encashment provision issue to the Assessing Officer to be decided as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the Exide Industries case. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision allowing depreciation on revenue sharing license fee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of GP rate, finding the AO's estimation not borne out from the records. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the Section 54G deduction, allowing investments made within one year before and three years after the transfer.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition solely on the basis of information from the Sales Tax Department and statements from suppliers without independent inquiry or confronting the assessee with adverse material. Since the assessee provided supporting documents for purchases and the sales turnover was accepted, the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of export commission paid to the husband was not justified as there was no finding that the payment was excessive or unreasonable, and it had been allowed in earlier years. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect, following a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment, finding sufficient reason for the AO to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had not provided a basis for estimating the profit at 30% and therefore set aside this issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed deletion of a protective addition for unexplained investment, finding no justification for it. It also set aside additions related to a partnership firm, M/s Kaka Investments, deeming it not to be the assessee's benami concern. However, it confirmed the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee from commission income.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence, acknowledging the reasons for non-furnishing before lower authorities. The Tribunal restored the issues of unsecured loans, unexplained cash credit, car expenses, club expenses, and foreign travel expenses to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contention that business activities had not commenced and no income was earned in the impugned years, similar to AY 2011-12 where nil income was accepted. The assessments were restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO made ad-hoc disallowances without pointing out specific inaccuracies in the assessee's filed particulars. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd., the Tribunal confirmed that a mere claim not accepted by the Revenue does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal on the Section 14A disallowance, directing the AO to restrict it to 0.5% of the average investment. For the classification of income, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chennai Properties.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect on the disputed amount was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10.00 lacs are not maintainable before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the discount given to distributors for pre-paid products was not commission liable for TDS under section 194H, as the assessee treated it as a sale with a margin. Regarding roaming charges, the Tribunal found no human intervention in providing these services, thus they did not fall under section 194J as fees for technical services.
The Tribunal held that running a pharmacy is an integral and ancillary part of running a hospital. Therefore, the condition of maintaining separate books of account for the pharmacy business was not a requirement for exemption under Section 11(4A) in this context.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash credits from minor children and set aside the protective addition for unexplained investment, finding no justification for sustaining it. It also directed the AO to estimate commission income at 5% instead of 10%. For the later assessment year, the Tribunal held that M/s Kaka Investments was not a benami concern of the assessee and deleted related additions.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of export commission paid to the husband was not justified as there was no finding that the payment was excessive or unreasonable, and it had been allowed in earlier years. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect, following a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal found that the cash balance recorded in the assessee's cash book as of the survey date matched the cash found. Since there was no discrepancy, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee had provided confirmation letters, PAN, bank statements, and cheque payment details for most shareholders. The AO's remand reports indicated investments were through banking channels and local shareholders confirmed investments.
The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty was allowable based on the matching principle and past experience, and the adjustment to closing stock was also upheld. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld as the assessee had not made any voluntary disallowance and Rule 8D was applicable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of export commission paid to the husband was not justified as there was no finding that the payment was excessive or unreasonable, and it had been allowed in earlier years. The revenue's appeals were dismissed due to low tax effect, following a CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim statutory deductions in relation to the rental income included in her share of partnership profit. The AO was directed to recompute the deduction and allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was following the project completion method and the addition made by the AO based on the percentage completion method was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in a sister concern's case with identical issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not concerned with the broker's activities, especially since the transactions were conducted on the stock exchange floor and payments were made via account payee cheques with proper delivery of shares. The Tribunal found no positive material from the department to prove the transactions were bogus.