Loading ITAT cases…
513 orders · Page 5 of 11
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the restriction of addition to 30% was based on sound reasoning. The assessee failed to provide any material to seek further relief.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 20 lacs, and therefore, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing evidence such as crossed cheques, TDS certificates, and ledger accounts. The fact that similar payments were allowed in the preceding year and the Revenue did not make efforts to trace the party through its own database supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a reasonable and bonafide explanation for claiming depreciation. Since there was no tax evasion and the income declared was a loss, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable if no exempt income is earned. Regarding Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal ruled that no disallowance is sustainable if the recipient has already offered the income in their return and paid tax thereon, citing retrospective amendments.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the factual matrix and the assessee to produce necessary evidence, including the Chartered Accountant, to substantiate the claim. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide after satisfying himself.
The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to justice and that dismissing an appeal on a technicality like manual filing, when substantial justice is at stake, is not appropriate. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals. For AY 2010-11, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to the prior Tribunal ruling. For the other two years, the appeals were dismissed based on the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, as the tax effect in each appeal was below Rs. 20 Lacs.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets acquired through application of income does not amount to double deduction. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that depreciation is permissible as it relates to the use of assets.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had offered the interest income in the correct assessment year and disclosed other interest income in the financial statements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not constitute an agency PE in India as its agent was remunerated at arm's length price. It also held that the disallowance of programming and transponder charges was incorrect as the payments were not in the nature of royalty and were not borne by a PE in India.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to capital gains, agreeing that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54. However, the issue of unsecured loans was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination due to divergent findings.
The Tribunal held that the AO had correctly rectified an apparent mistake under Section 154 of the Act without altering the original assessment's findings. The CIT(A) had rightly confirmed this rectification order.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's claims regarding STPI/SEZ units and reversal of provision. Additional grounds related to Section 10A were also restored.
The Tribunal held that the free distribution of tobacco products amounts to promotion, which is prohibited under the COTP Act. Therefore, such expenses are disallowable under Explanation (1) to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal upheld the reassessment proceedings, finding that the AO had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. However, it found the addition of 17% on alleged bogus purchases to be on the higher side and restricted it to 5%.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without cogent evidence to establish that the assessee company received the amount in violation of Section 269-SS. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of entries in the company's books.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired identifiable rights in the property and made full payment by June 2008, making the holding period more than three years. The AO's addition of the entire sale consideration without deducting the cost of acquisition was also deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on fresh material. It also upheld the AO's estimation of 12.5% profit on alleged bogus purchases, finding it to be fair and reasonable based on various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of clearing and forwarding charges incurred by a clearing agent on behalf of the assessee are not subject to TDS under Section 194C. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their returned income, considering the principle of natural justice and the high-pitched assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were already deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It followed its own previous decisions and High Court rulings on issues like disallowance under Section 14A and valuation of securities.
The Tribunal held that while the suppliers were suspicious, the Assessing Officer did not conduct sufficient investigation. The First Appellate Authority's finding that part of the goods formed closing stock and the disallowance of 12.5% of purchases was reasonable was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the search was validly conducted. Regarding the commission payment, it allowed the telescoping of the commission payment out of the income offered for bogus freight and transport expenses, as no incriminating material was found to corroborate the commission payment.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine as the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that since possession of the land was not handed over to the developer during the year, no transfer had taken place. Consequently, capital gains liability did not arise.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT's Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It followed its own previous decisions and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling on various grounds, including Section 14A disallowance and valuation of securities.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine, noting that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in Circular No. 3/2018 and the issue did not appear to fall under any exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including contract notes and demat account statements, to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the broker had also confirmed the transactions, and any irregularities by the broker should not disprove the assessee's genuine transactions.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to provide relevant documents and was granted an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the amount received as preference share capital is a capital receipt and cannot be taxed under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to appear and provide relevant documents. For the second issue regarding society charges, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal, noting identical facts to a previous assessment year, restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the rent expenditure based on the Tribunal's prior order.
The Tribunal held that the third proviso to Section 24 of the Act applies only to self-occupied property, not other properties. Therefore, a portion of the interest expenditure related to the opening balance of unsecured loans could be allocated against rental income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided purchase bills and payment proofs, it failed to provide further evidence, and the parties involved were identified as hawala operators. Therefore, the purchases could not be considered entirely genuine, nor entirely bogus.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting new evidence (CA certificate, bank details) without giving the AO an opportunity to examine or rebut it as per Rule 46A. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest and municipal taxes related to house property should be allowed in toto, not restricted to the let-out area, following a previous decision for the assessee. Similarly, proportionate disallowance of business expenses based on non-let out area was deemed incorrect once the property was completed and available for business use.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed after examination and verification of facts, and the Principal Commissioner failed to substantiate the claim of lack of inquiry. The revisional order was set aside as the assessment was not framed hastily or without considering necessary details.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose facts. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while it is the assessee's duty to produce evidence before the AO, the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence in the interest of justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) as the R&D facility was not approved for the impugned assessment year. However, it allowed revenue expenditure incurred towards R&D facility u/s 37(1) and restricted disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the difference of Rs. 56,28,179/- required verification at the AO's level. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after the assessee files relevant documents and is given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision was based on a previous ruling by a coordinate bench for the same assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. This was due to the reassessment being initiated after four years without any failure to disclose material facts by the assessee, a mere change of opinion by the AO, and the non-disposal of the assessee's objections by a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and not on any new or tangible material. The Assessing Officer had merely re-examined the material already available during the original assessment.
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, finding merit in the grounds related to entertainment expenses. However, it dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning the deletion of additions for share application money and unsecured loans, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding interest expenses, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.