Loading ITAT cases…
807 orders · Page 12 of 17
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 20.00 lakhs or less are generally not to be pursued, unless they fall under specific exceptions. Since the Revenue could not demonstrate any such exception, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was imposed on an ad-hoc estimation without concrete evidence. Since the AO had verified the availability of cash from the assessee's books during remand proceedings, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals in limine as the tax effect was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The revenue was precluded from pursuing appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 20.00 lakhs or less, unless an exception applied.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the relief granted was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable and did not point out any exceptions.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is applicable only when exempt income is actually earned, not on notional or anticipated income. Therefore, no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is received.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of the delayed Section 143(2) notice goes to the root of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction. The CIT(A) had incorrectly dismissed this ground as general, and the Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for similar verification as directed in previous orders. The assessee's claim is acceptable only for expenditures subject to an increase with time, related to the age of the vehicle.
The Tribunal held that there was no dispute regarding the identity or creditworthiness of the creditor (assessee's father). The assessee had also explained the genuineness of the transaction, including the reason for availing the loan.
The Tribunal held that merely because an explanation furnished by the assessee was not accepted or was disproved, it does not automatically attract penalty. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all documentary evidence and the claim was bona fide, even if unproved.
The Tribunal restored issues regarding depreciation and AIR report additions to the AO for verification. It upheld the deletion of ALP adjustments for royalty payments and the allowance of advertisement films expenses, following previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's claim of a bonafide belief and reasonable cause for claiming the deduction. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). A cooperative bank, despite Section 80P(4), remains a cooperative society for the purpose of this deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment, finding sufficient reason based on specific information received. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal against the addition of 10% of bogus purchases, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that identical issues in previous assessment years had been decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that the Indian agent was an independent entity and not a PE.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly addressed the AO's observations regarding the transfer to the 'Investment' account. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that payment of bank guarantee commission does not attract TDS under Section 194H as there is no principal-agent relationship between the bank and the assessee. The payment is for services rendered on a principal-to-principal basis.
The Tribunal noted the CBDT circular and the communication from the Income Tax Officer seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that only real income is taxable and even if a transaction is not verifiable, only the taxable income component should be taxed, not the entire transaction. The addition was restricted to 10% of the disputed purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on renovation of leased premises was revenue in nature and deductible. It also ruled that the compounding fee paid under FEMA was compensatory and deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law, or an explanation not being accepted, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the penalty was deemed not leviable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. For the leasehold land issue, the AO was directed to apply the decision of the Bombay High Court once it becomes final.
The tribunal corrected a specific CBDT Circular number mentioned in its previous order. The original order remains otherwise unmodified.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest expenditure disallowance, citing sufficient interest-free funds. For administrative expenses, it directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the actual exempt income earned, considering the assessee's suo motu disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the discount on shares allotted to employees under an ESOP scheme is an allowable revenue expenditure. It directed the AO to allow the claim after examining the valuation of shares.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted proper inquiry about comparable properties and had made an ad-hoc addition. It was noted that the AO failed to appreciate the differences in size, potential, and other factors between the two units when determining the ALV.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of commission and professional fees paid to relatives, and rent expenses, finding no evidence of services rendered and that the rent was for residential purposes. The issues of cash credit and interest expenses were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that PF/ESI contributions paid before the return filing due date are allowable deductions, following the jurisdictional High Court. It also held that depreciation and interest on a car are allowable even if the car is registered in a director's relative's name, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that since the issue of short-term capital gains, which formed the basis for the penalty, was restored to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication, the penalty order should be set aside pending that decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not record specific satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. It relied on the Gujarat High Court's ruling that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income, not the entire purchase price.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction of pre-operative expenses and in reducing the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and sustained the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not followed the prescribed methods for computing ALP and had not issued mandatory notices. It also noted that the disallowance of society charges and property tax was based on earlier years' orders without proper verification. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation of ALP and verification of expenses.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from pursuing the appeal due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The assessee's cross-objection was not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54EC while calculating book profit under Section 115JB, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on the ground of monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars. The issue of whether the provision for development expenses was allowable was not adjudicated on merits.
The tribunal corrected a clerical error in its previous order, specifically amending the mentioned CBDT Circular number from 3/2008 to 3/2018. This correction was the only modification to the original order.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in passing the assessment order under Section 144 due to the assessee's continuous absence and failure to provide evidence. The CIT(A)'s findings were also found to be judicious and well-reasoned.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the profit arising from the sale of commercial premises should be taxed as business income, not long-term capital gains. This decision was based on the assessee's business of real estate and prior ITAT rulings in its own case.
The Tribunal held that only the taxable income component, not the entire transaction, is taxable even if a transaction is not verifiable. The disallowance was further restricted to 12.5% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the interest income was already taxed in the hands of the joint venture partner and confirmed the assessee's ground of appeal. The addition of the same income to the assessee's income resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Since no exceptions applied, the appeal was deemed withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive is a capital receipt and not taxable. It further held that such capital receipts should be excluded from net profit when computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) based on positive net interest income. For disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it directed recomputation considering only investments yielding exempt income. The addition for income as per 26AS was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following previous decisions that a cooperative society is not a cooperative bank if it does not possess a banking license from the RBI and its activities are limited to its members. Therefore, Section 80P(4) does not apply, and the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is allowable.
The Tribunal found that while the subcontractor's verification was problematic, the assessee had provided some supporting documents like bank statements and TDS details. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the sub-contract charges.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeals were dismissed.