Loading ITAT cases…
513 orders · Page 3 of 11
The Tribunal found that the assessee could establish a mistake in service tax return figures and remanded the first issue to the AO for fresh verification. For the second issue, the Tribunal noted regular dealings with Smita S Mane but lack of clarity and opportunity for the assessee to examine her, thus restoring it to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT's revised monetary limits for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 applies to credits of the current year and not to opening balances from previous years. Since the share application money was received in earlier years and only allotment occurred in the current year, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and a sister concern's case, upholding the net profit rate of 0.15% on accommodation entries. It also directed that business expenses be allowed to the extent of 50%.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly recorded satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter after the assessee provides details of its investment activities and associated costs. The issue of TDS credit was also restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the findings. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide any rebuttal or new facts to controvert the CIT(A)'s conclusions.
The Tribunal held that Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited should be excluded as it was functionally dissimilar. However, Cyber Media Research Ltd. (formerly IDC India Ltd.) should be included in the comparable set. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of loans, which were originally taken for capital expenditure (acquisition of land, building, plant, and machinery), cannot be treated as income under Section 28(iv). The waiver of a capital nature receipt does not change its character to a revenue receipt.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not hit by the Explanation to Section 37(1) as there was no enabling provision for the CBDT circular. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the assessee had disclosed all facts and the dispute was on interpretation.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not hit by the Explanation to Section 37(1) as there was no enabling provision for the CBDT circular. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the assessee had disclosed all facts and the dispute was on interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not hit by the Explanation to Section 37(1) as there was no enabling provision for the CBDT circular. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the assessee had disclosed all facts and the dispute was on interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made excess disallowance of interest by not considering investment made from interest-free funds borrowed from the spouse. It also directed that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied prematurely, as the AO passed the order before the date fixed for the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence substantiating their financial distress.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for advertisement expenses, finding that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions which had considered the High Court rulings cited by the Revenue. The Tribunal also allowed expenses for foreign travel of non-crew members accompanying child artists, deeming them necessary business expenses.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not hit by the Explanation to Section 37(1) as there was no enabling provision for the CBDT circular. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the assessee had disclosed all facts and the dispute was on interpretation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying registration. It found that the trust's objects, including running a yoga center, tailoring training, and providing food, were charitable and not substantially religious. The temple was open to all irrespective of caste or creed.
For AY 2010-11, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed due to low tax effect. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal held that only a reasonable percentage of alleged bogus purchases should be disallowed, not the entire amount, to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine from the stated parties, the goods were received and payments were made through cheques, indicating purchases from the open market. The addition was restricted to the profit element.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's revision order under section 263 was without jurisdiction. This was because the issues considered by the CIT were already subject to appeal before the CIT(A) and had been decided by them.
The Tribunal held that investments in Mutual Fund Growth Options, which are capable of earning taxable income, should be excluded when calculating the average value of investments for disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). The issue of the exact amount of suo moto disallowance was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in passing the revision order under section 263 as the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT's revision order was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that when a capital asset is acquired by gift, the indexed cost of acquisition must be computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset, not the year the assessee became the owner. This aligns with the legislative intent to tax capital gains comprehensively.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the submission that the tax effect of the appeal was below ₹20 Lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal held that the revisional jurisdiction invoked by the CIT was not justified. It found that the trust's activities were primarily charitable, aimed at public utility, and any surplus generated was incidental and not the main objective. The Tribunal relied on previous orders and judicial precedents that supported the assessee's charitable nature.
The Tribunal noted that similar matters for earlier assessment years were remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication. Therefore, the current year's appeal was also remitted back to the AO to consider the outcome of those earlier proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh for appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue's counsel did not controvert this fact.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in passing the revision order under section 263 as the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT's revision order was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in passing the revision order under section 263 as the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT's revision order was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries before allowing the deduction. While the Pr. CIT correctly identified the error, directing outright disallowance was not appropriate. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries and verifications.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to cable operators for placement charges were in the nature of carrying out work of broadcasting and telecasting, thus falling under Section 194C. Consequently, the assessee had correctly deducted tax at source under this section.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee, when complete details were provided and the genuineness of expenses was not disputed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The difference in treatment between books and the return of income was considered a difference of opinion.
The Tribunal found that the refund was significantly less than claimed and that the refund of earlier years was not correctly adjusted. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-determination of the correct refund and interest due to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, agreeing that income under section 68, where the source is unknown, cannot be taxed under a specific head and cannot be set off against business losses. The assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the counsel's health issues. It restored the issue of capital gains to the AO for reconsideration of purchase documents and remitted the issue of cash deposits to the AO for verification of cash flow statements and substantiation.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the amount of expenses claimed by the assessee, finding the AO's calculation unjustified. The tribunal followed its own earlier decisions and the CIT(A)'s reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition is allowable to the assessee, even if not claimed in the return. The AO was directed to consider the purchase documents and re-compute the income, allowing the cost of acquisition or the fair market value as on 01.04.1981.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in passing the revision order under section 263 as the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT's revision order was without jurisdiction.
The ITAT had previously set aside the revisionary order passed by the CIT under Section 263. Consequently, the AO's order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, directed the AO to restrict the addition to 11.50% of the bogus purchases minus the VAT credit denied to the assessee. This was to account for the fact that the assessee had paid VAT on these purchases which was later disallowed by the Sales Tax Department.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee, when complete details were provided and the genuineness of expenses was not disputed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The difference in treatment between books and the return of income was considered a difference of opinion.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets acquired from trust income is allowable, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona. It also held that carry forward of deficit is permissible, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection.
The Tribunal held that reducing the aggregate of 'Sundry Debtors' in the Balance Sheet amounts to writing off the debts. It also noted that Section 41(4) of the Act empowers the AO to tax subsequent recoveries, negating the revenue's concern about income escapement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in passing the revision order under section 263 as the assessment orders were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT's revision order was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that interest paid for AY 2009-10, after deducting TDS, should be allowed. The issue of disallowance of expenses incurred by the Director was set aside to the AO for re-examination. Directions given by the AO for reducing expenses from Work-in-progress for AY 2010-11 were set aside as beyond the AO's scope.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not properly appreciate the evidence submitted by the assessee, nor did he conduct independent inquiries before rejecting the books of account. Adverse materials were not confronted to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.