Loading ITAT cases…
807 orders · Page 13 of 17
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.
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 a significant portion of the loans (Rs. 79 Lacs) could not be added under Section 68 as they were not credited in the books of the assessee during the relevant assessment year. For the remaining fresh loans (Rs. 20.50 Lacs), the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the deposit made in the capital gains account before the due date of filing the return of income qualified for deduction under Section 54(2). The proviso to Section 54 allows for the amount to be taxed in the year the three-year period expires if not utilized.
The Tribunal noted that for a previous assessment year, an identical issue regarding depreciation on electrical installation was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-appreciation of facts. Following the same precedent, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that adjustments for abnormal items in the transfer pricing computation should be considered on merits, while adjustments for the startup phase were rejected due to lack of substantiation. The issue of brought forward business loss was also restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the AO initiated penalty proceedings under one charge (furnishing inaccurate particulars) but levied penalty under another charge (concealment of particulars). This lack of application of mind renders the penalty orders unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to the assessment year in question, and given that the original assessment was already completed and had attained finality, no additions could be made. The decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation was followed.
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 restored the issue of credit card charges to the AO for verification, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground for statistical purposes. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal regarding disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b) and Section 37(1), upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under section 153A were not justified, especially when the original assessments were unabated. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under section 153A were not justified, especially when the original assessments were unabated. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loan addition was not substantiated due to a defective Memorandum of Settlement. However, the addition on account of cash deposits was restored to the AO for verification. The ad-hoc disallowances on cash expenses and other expenses were deleted as the genuineness of the expenses was not disputed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the CBDT circular revising monetary limits for appeals, which the current appeal did not meet.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without discussing the issues on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the nature of payments to the transport agents required further verification. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance based on the details provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of bogus purchases to 6.5% of the total disputed purchases, finding it reasonable. The Tribunal also agreed that the reopening of assessment was valid as the Assessing Officer had sufficient reason to believe income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under section 153A were not justified, especially when the original assessments were unabated. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under section 153A were not justified, especially when the original assessments were unabated. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made under section 153A were not justified, especially when the original assessments were unabated. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions supporting this view.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of 10% of staff welfare expenses. It found that the personal element could not be ruled out and the assessee's claim was not fully supported by evidence, including cash expenses.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the court orders and the fact that 28% of the land was handed over to the original buyer, which was not considered by the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided bills, vouchers, and payment details for the purchases, and the material was consumed at the project site. Merely because the suppliers could not be produced for confirmation does not automatically lead to a conclusion of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on the purchase of audio rights for producing audio CDs and cassettes is revenue in nature, following its own previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not supported by evidence. The evidence indicated that the transaction for the BMW car likely occurred between Shri Narendra Mohan Singh and Shri Anil Kumar Singh, not the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no basis for the AO's restriction of remuneration to 5.5% of turnover. It noted that the remuneration was commensurate with the work done and that the directors had paid taxes at the highest marginal rate.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the evidence submitted by the assessee. Citing a similar case of the assessee's brother, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance on account of bogus purchases to 6.5%.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 for the Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was earned. However, the assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue regarding the deletion of assets from the block of assets.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the AO, directing the AO to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and frame the assessment accordingly.
The Tribunal held that levying penalty on the assessee, who denied connection with the business, was unreasonable. The penalty was also wrongly levied at the maximum marginal rate instead of the applicable rate.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed quantum was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the revenue's appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that procedural rules are subservient to justice and that technical considerations should not overshadow substantial justice. The appeal was therefore set aside for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the mark-to-market loss on derivatives held as stock-in-trade is allowable, following its own precedent. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in dispute was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the sale deeds submitted by the assessee for certain properties and allow the benefit of indexation and cost of acquisition accordingly. The appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy borne by the tenant is part of the taxable annual value and is allowable as a deduction under Section 23. However, the actual payment of the levy by the assessee needed verification.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment. However, it found the 12.5% profit margin on bogus purchases to be too high for the assessee's business and directed that a 4% profit margin be applied.
The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench's decision, directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,26,85,525/- and instead make an addition at 12.5% on the amount of total bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the first appellate authority had decided the issue on merits after considering the assessee's submissions and the remand report. There was no material before the Tribunal to take a different view.
The Tribunal restored the issue of un-reconciled differences to the AO for verification of accounting entries. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the allowability of bank guarantee invoked due to breach of contract and loan processing charges.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, following its own prior decisions in similar cases for other assessment years. This was based on the Bombay High Court's rulings in CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery and CIT vs. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in all the appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.