Loading ITAT cases…
612 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities lacked proper adjudication and that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS disallowance for one party to the AO for further examination, confirmed disallowances for two other parties, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the revised return.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating it was not maintainable due to low tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if investments yielding taxable income were included in the disallowance calculation and to re-examine the AIR information additions. The AO was instructed to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain its case.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment and appellate orders due to lack of proper opportunity and the non-admission of additional evidence. The penalty was also deleted as it arose from the set-aside assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment and appellate orders due to lack of proper opportunity and the non-admission of additional evidence. The penalty was also deleted as it arose from the set-aside assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment and appellate orders due to lack of proper opportunity and the non-admission of additional evidence. The penalty was also deleted as it arose from the set-aside assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine. It was held that the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000/- and the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the existence of excess interest-free funds and had mechanically applied Rule 8D without rejecting the assessee's claim. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54, in cases of construction of a residential flat, the date of possession, not the date of agreement or registration, is the relevant date. The assessee had entered into an agreement for a flat under construction and took possession within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable. The assessee's cross-objection, which supported the CIT(A)'s order, was also dismissed.
The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Furthermore, section 115JB was not applicable to banks for the assessment year in question, and section 234D was also not applicable.
The Tribunal decided that the payment made by the assessee to CIDCO was in the nature of lease premium for acquiring rights in the land, not rent for its use. Therefore, TDS under Section 194I was not applicable.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merit.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred in the assessee's professional capacity to protect his business interests and is therefore allowable under Section 37(1). However, the matter of travelling and hotel expenses was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that an unsigned order lacks legal sanctity and is invalid. The availability of a signed copy in the Assessing Officer's record does not validate the unsigned copy served on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover her investments, as demonstrated by her own funds exceeding the investment amounts. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted. The Tribunal also found no fault with the assessee's computation for the 0.5% disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the tax authorities rejected the assessee's claim based on a general statement and an investigation report without disproving the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the long-term capital gains should be accepted.
The Tribunal held that shares and securities held as stock-in-trade cannot be considered for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities was deleted.
The CIT(A) held that no interest was chargeable under Section 234C, and the addition made by the AO was to be deleted. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lacs are not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was illegal as the AO failed to establish the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also found that the commission was paid as part of salary, TDS was deducted correctly, and no income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider the assessee's plea that the material relied upon by him was also considered in other family members' cases, which were decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.
The Tribunal held that the inter-corporate transactions were made for business expediency between companies with running accounts and did not constitute gratuitous payments for the benefit of the shareholder. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.
The tribunal remanded the issue of the exact sale date for Section 54EC deduction back to the AO for fresh adjudication. For Section 54F, the tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the assessee acted bona fide and offered income in a subsequent year when the construction was not completed.
The Tribunal held that for claiming bad debts, it is sufficient if a part of the debt, such as brokerage income, has been taken into account in computing the assessee's income. The Tribunal also noted that even if not allowable as bad debt, it could be allowed as a business loss.
The Tribunal held that the AO should assess the peak credit of the cash deposits, considering withdrawals made from the same account. The issue was set aside to the AO for fresh assessment on this principle.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was invalid as it was done after four years from the end of the assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The addition made by the AO was also found to be unsustainable on merits.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest expenditure, confirming that it should be treated as part of the cost of production as per Rule 9A of the Income Tax Rules. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider allowing this deduction in the assessment year of the films' release.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details for almost all claimed expenses and that the penalty was wrongly levied. The CIT(A) had misconstrued facts, particularly regarding the date format of invoices.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not discuss the documents furnished by the parties and that additional evidence was submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that facility charges received for specific services like housekeeping and security are distinct from rental income and should be treated as business income. The matter of disallowance of expenses was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the DIT(E)'s rejection of registration was not justifiable. Merely not having income or expenditure in initial years, or the nature of a donation, are not sufficient grounds for rejection.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on the basis of material collected behind the assessee's back without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was invalid as it was not approved by the competent authority as required by the proviso to section 151(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 was 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 appeals were dismissed.
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 appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order under Section 154 was unjustified as there was no mistake apparent from the record. The CIT(A) had correctly analyzed the facts and found that the unabsorbed depreciation was rightly granted as a deduction in the original assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax in the first quarter as the capital gains had not yet accrued. Therefore, the levy of interest under section 234C was incorrect.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for compensation as it was considered by the Settlement Commission and declared by the assessee. The issue of interest on non-convertible debentures was set aside to the AO for de-novo decision due to the company's takeover and cessation of business.
The Tribunal held that if the interest was charged under Section 234D, it was not applicable as the assessment was completed prior to the prospective date. If it was interest on interest, it was illegal as there was no provision for it. Therefore, the charging of interest was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for compensation as it was considered by the Settlement Commission and declared by the assessee. The issue of interest on non-convertible debentures was set aside to the AO for de-novo decision due to the company's takeover and cessation of business.