Loading ITAT cases…
668 orders · Page 2 of 14
The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains should be taxed only on the sale of machinery, not the building, as new buildings acquired were more than the sale value of the old building. It also directed fresh adjudication on freight disallowance and confirmed the deletion of additions related to TDS, unproved loans, and liabilities written back.
The Tribunal held that the cost of shares sold on trading account should be the original cost, not an average cost, and the cost of bonus shares should be taken as 'Nil' as per Section 55(2)(aa)(iiia). The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt but was part of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was based on a debatable legal contention and was fully disclosed, thus not constituting concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that possession of immovable property should not be equated with physical occupation. Since the assessee had started furniture work in the flat, formalities like water connection should not be a deciding factor to deny a deduction under a benevolent provision.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is not retrospective and thus not applicable for AY 2007-08. However, a reasonable disallowance was directed to be restricted to 2% of the dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the cost of shares sold on trading account should be the original cost, not an average cost, and the cost of bonus shares should be taken as 'Nil' as per Section 55(2)(aa)(iiia). The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt but was part of the appeals.
The Tribunal found that the C & F agent acted as an agent for the assessee, and tax should have been deducted at source. However, the break-up details of the expenses were not available, and the AO had not examined if all payments attracted TDS provisions.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2006-07, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed as infructuous due to prior rulings on Section 115JB's non-applicability to banks. For AY 2009-10, disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not warranted, but disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the loss on forward exchange contracts, incurred in the ordinary course of business and accounted for at the year-end based on prevailing exchange rates, is admissible. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 25 of 2015, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted for additions/disallowances made under normal provisions when tax is levied under Section 115JB for assessment years prior to 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was untenable as it failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not adjudicating on the merits of the appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the delay. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, the Tribunal noted that the AO did not disclose the comparables used to the assessee before completing the assessment, which amounts to a denial of a fair opportunity and a violation of natural justice. The assessee's objections to the comparables being in the diamond jewellery export business were also not properly considered. Even at the appellate stage, the assessee's objections were not adequately dealt with. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's objections regarding the most appropriate method and comparables, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, as it was based on the transfer pricing addition that was no longer surviving. The AO may initiate penalty proceedings afresh after the assessment is completed.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was remitted back to the AO for verification of expenses, and the basis for levying penalty was reversed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was untenable as it failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not adjudicating on the merits of the appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an agent and reimbursements should not be considered as turnover for the purpose of Section 44AB. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year was a 'completed assessment' and thus would not abate under section 153A unless incriminating material was found. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the existence of incriminating material and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that once expenses are disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS, no further demand under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) can be raised. This is because the disallowance itself addresses the non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made due to a difference of opinion, rather than detection of inaccurate particulars or concealment, do not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c). The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products was applied.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to produce evidence earlier, new documents were submitted. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issue after providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and prove the submitted documents.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation as the assessee failed to provide evidence of business use. However, it restricted the disallowance of motorcar/mobile expenses to 10% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that shares held as stock-in-trade cannot be considered for disallowance under Section 14A. Additionally, the First Appellate Authority's order was found to be non-speaking and lacked proper consideration of the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the assessees had provided sufficient evidence and explanations, and it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The additions were not made due to falsehood in evidence but rather due to the inability to furnish further evidence as required.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the interest income on OFCPNs from total income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that the property taxes were paid before the due date of filing the return, and Section 43B of the Act was correctly applied.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which precludes the Revenue from pursuing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs, and the issue not falling under any exceptions.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the disallowance of interest expenses under Section 14A, holding that the assessee's own funds were sufficient for investments. A reasonable disallowance of Rs. 2,500 was made for other indirect expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation as the assessee failed to provide evidence of business use. However, it restricted the disallowance of motorcar/mobile expenses to 10% to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the amortisation of premium on investment is allowable as revenue expenditure, following RBI guidelines and CBDT circulars. It also held that unrealised payslips and unidentified deposits cannot be added to income merely because they remained unpaid for years, as there was no evidence of cessation of liability.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the assessees had provided sufficient evidence and explanations, and it was not a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The additions were not made due to falsehood in evidence but rather due to the inability to furnish further evidence as required.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly treated the transaction as a sale of capital asset and applied Section 50C. However, it directed that the value adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities, not the DVO's higher valuation or the actual sale consideration, should be used for computing capital gains.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that depreciation on furniture and fixtures cannot be allowed against income from house property, as it is a separate head of income. Expenses like brokerage and professional fees related to property leasing are also not allowable against business income.
The Tribunal held that director's remuneration was rightly disallowed as there was no business activity to justify it, while statutory expenses were allowable to maintain the corporate entity. The interest income was correctly taxed under 'Income from other sources'.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds to cover its investments, no disallowance of interest expenditure was attracted. However, the disallowance of administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded their jurisdiction by levying fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for the period prior to June 1, 2015. Such levies made through intimation under Section 200A were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to choose its accounting method as long as it represents a true picture and complies with accounting standards. Since the AO did not demonstrate under-estimation of profits with facts and figures, the Tribunal upheld the FAA's order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was erroneous as it was passed without proper analysis and discussion of the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal found that the impugned expenses pertained to the year under consideration and were not disallowable.
The Tribunal held that a difference in stock valuation, especially when supported by a bonafide explanation and documentation, does not amount to concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
The tribunal held that since the quantum addition was set aside, the penalty order also needed to be set aside. The penalty was to be decided afresh by the AO after the quantum issue was resolved.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of unascertained expenditure for reward points was not justified, following previous consistent rulings in favour of the assessee. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds and no exempt income was earned, thus no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in excluding interest income without considering the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee. Since the interest paid exceeded the interest received, the AO's calculation leading to a notional loss was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that if the original reassessment proceedings under section 147 were invalid or without jurisdiction, no addition could be made in subsequent proceedings under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the validity of the section 147 proceedings.
The tribunal held that the interest was chargeable due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the HRA claim, not due to any failure by the employer in TDS. The grounds raised by the assessee were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC irrespective of whether the main exporter was allowed the deduction. This was based on the fact that the main exporter's assessment was quashed and the deduction was ultimately found allowable to them.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.