Loading ITAT cases…
523 orders · Page 3 of 11
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 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.
The Tribunal found no justification for the disallowance as the Assessing Officer did not point out any expenditure incurred for earning exempt income, and the assessee did not claim any such expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
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 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 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 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 sale deeds clearly indicated the purchase of only the super structure (flats) and not the land. The ownership of the land remained with the vendor, to be transferred to a cooperative society later. Therefore, the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in bifurcating the purchase price between land and building.
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 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 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 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 dismissed the assessee's appeal and cross-objection as withdrawn. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s deletion of the addition on account of unexplained outstanding balances of creditors.
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 cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS. The FCCBs were zero-coupon bonds with no interest payable during the tenure, and the premium was payable only on maturity or conversion/buyback, making it difficult to identify the payee at the time of accrual.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the ground related to agricultural products trading, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis. The Tribunal also dismissed the grounds related to sections 41(1) and 69A, stating that the assessee's claim that the CIT(A) should have held the additions unjustified under any provision was not raised before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed issue was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal followed its own previous order on similar facts and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the factual matrix. The AO is to determine if the flats were indeed converted into one unit or remained separate, and then decide accordingly.
The Tribunal followed its own previous order on similar facts and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the factual matrix. The AO is to determine if the flats were indeed converted into one unit or remained separate, and then decide accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions for filing appeals before the ITAT.
The tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient cause. The decision not to file the appeal initially was conscious and deliberate, and even after the penalty order, there was a further significant delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed all relevant particulars and the explanation for the provision was bona fide, as it was a consistent practice accepted in earlier and subsequent years. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the disallowance should be restricted to the portion of advances made from borrowed funds, not the entire amount. The CIT(A) had correctly calculated the disallowance based on the available own funds.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required to be deducted on the service tax component of commission paid to agents, as it is not income of the agent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on relevant CBDT circulars and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to 2% of dividend income, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds. For the addition to closing stock, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination. The disallowance of corporate membership fees was deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 220(2) is not sustainable for the period prior to the final order of the Settlement Commission, as the tax liability was determined and paid based on earlier orders. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow the appeal was upheld.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required to be deducted on the service tax component of commission paid to agents, as it is not income of the agent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on relevant CBDT circulars and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required to be deducted on the service tax component of commission paid to agents, as it is not income of the agent. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on relevant CBDT circulars and High Court judgments.
Since the original disallowance under Section 14A was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty levied on that disallowance has no basis. The CIT(A) had also deleted the penalty following the Tribunal's order.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. The additional evidence was directed to be filed before the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. It held that TDS was not required on year-end provisions when the payee was not identifiable and the provision was reversed, especially if the amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion, as the assessee had made full disclosure in the original assessment. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld, stating that no new material was presented to justify the reopening.
The Tribunal held that profits on sale of investments are not taxable for the assessment year in question. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made and that premium amortization is allowable.
The Tribunal held that Duty Drawback and DEPB benefits are not considered income derived from an industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80IB deduction. These benefits arise from schemes encouraging exports, not directly from the industrial operations themselves.
The Tribunal held that profits on sale of investments are not taxable for the assessment year in question. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made and that premium amortization is allowable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) to the AO for fresh examination based on jurisdictional High Court rulings. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), specific lump-sum disallowances were determined for each assessment year. The claim for deduction under Section 35D for public issue expenses incurred before April 1, 2009, was confirmed as disallowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's disallowances were made without proper appreciation of facts and without sufficient material. The Tribunal noted that the interest was not claimed in the P&L, the liability was supported by confirmations, and the cash deposits were explained by opening balances.
The Tribunal found that the documents furnished by the assessee were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, all issues were restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision, with an adequate opportunity to be provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal, following its own previous order, held that interest expenditure is allowable if incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income. The matter was remanded to the AO to verify if the interest-free loan given to a related company was for commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that the assessee knowingly included profits from sale of plots and rental income in the Section 80IB(10) deduction claim, despite these not being related to building and developing housing projects. Therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the provision for contingent liability, holding that it is not an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act. However, the issue regarding allowing the amount on a payment basis in the year of actual payment was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the capital receipt of Rs. 20,57,890/- was not liable to be included in the book profit calculation as per Section 115JB. Consequently, the computation of tax and interest were also set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously decided appeals related to the same issues for the assessee, deleting all additions made under Section 201. Consequently, the current appeals by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for not paying the cash consideration was not supported by evidence and was an afterthought. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 170 days, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to file within the prescribed time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 170 days, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to file within the prescribed time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to agents outside India, for whom no part of their income arises in India, is not taxable in India. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence. It held that the authorities below had violated principles of natural justice by rejecting the explanation without proper verification and opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal decided most grounds in favor of the assessee, following its own previous orders for earlier assessment years. Several issues, including deductibility of license fees, advertisement expenses, commission income accrual, and transfer pricing adjustments, were decided against the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for not paying the cash consideration was not supported by evidence and was an afterthought. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld.