Loading ITAT cases…
807 orders · Page 3 of 17
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the Section 14A disallowance to the exempt income earned, citing jurisdictional precedents. It also affirmed the deletion of the addition from the property sale, as the sale was to recover loan dues and not to earn profit for the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the purchases' genuineness, following a precedent from the Rajasthan High Court. The assessee was given an opportunity to prove the veracity of the purchases.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It accepted the assessee's concession for a 20% disallowance on certain payments and remanded the issue of transport charges to the AO for re-verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for non-genuine purchases, finding that the assessee had provided documentary evidence and the AO had not properly examined it. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance for labour expenses and the benefit of telescoping for the insurance policy investment.
The Tribunal found no material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings and confirmed the orders passed by the CIT(A) for both assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 6.5% on bogus purchases. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that penalties for belated PF contributions, prior period expenses, and sales tax refunds were not justified as the assessee had disclosed material facts and the issues were debatable or technical defaults. However, penalties for commission payments were confirmed due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the business purpose and commensurate value of services.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was covered by its own previous order in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee must be given an opportunity to produce evidence and cross-examine witnesses if the Revenue relies on incriminating material. The case was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which fixed the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal. No exceptions were brought to the notice of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that section 244A of the Act is applicable from AY 1989-90 onwards. For AY 1986-87, section 244(1A) is applicable for calculating interest on refund.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the disallowance of short-term capital loss had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeal and all related grounds, including additional grounds, were also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing the CBDT circular which revised the monetary limits for departmental appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-approach if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which allows for withdrawal of appeals below a certain tax effect. The Revenue could not point to any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 14A(2) before making the disallowance. Furthermore, on merits, no disallowance was warranted as the interest and expenses were capitalized, and other expenses were either related to services or suo motu added back.
The Tribunal held that the commencement of construction of a new residential house can precede the date of sale of the old asset, as long as the construction is completed within the stipulated period. Payments made prior to the sale of the original asset are also eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to adjudicate the assessee's objections against the reopening notice in a speaking order renders the reassessment invalid. Therefore, the reassessment is quashed.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee and paid to the government, having no profit element, cannot be included in the gross receipts for computing income under Section 44B. This decision followed consistent past rulings in the assessee's own cases.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked merit adjudication. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowance on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a prior appeal concerning the quantum assessment. Therefore, the basis for the penalty no longer existed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for filing the revised return was bona fide, as the additional income was inadvertently omitted and disclosed immediately upon realizing the mistake. Since the AO accepted the revised return without additions, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow the previous Tribunal order for grounds 1-6, allowing the assessee's appeal on these grounds and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Ground 7 regarding interest on late TDS payment was remanded to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the mark-to-market loss on forward contracts, when accounted for consistently as per AS-11 and entered into for hedging underlying receivables, is a genuine business loss. The Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court decisions on identical issues.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow the previous Tribunal order for grounds 1-6, allowing the assessee's appeal on these grounds and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Ground 7 regarding interest on late TDS payment was remanded to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation before the CIT(A) but, in the interest of substantial justice, decided to provide one more opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee paid to continuing partners to protect the business interest was a valid expenditure. It also ruled that the ALV of the leased property should be the actual rent received, as it was higher than the municipal valuation and comparable cases used by the AO were not appropriate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft Ltd. regarding the procedure for reopening assessments. The Tribunal also found no reason to interfere with the deletion of the addition on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that a valid partnership firm existed and the amount received by the assessee was for his retirement from the firm, not for relinquishment of individual rights in property. Therefore, it was not taxable as capital gains.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, holding that the AO's action was based on a change of opinion and re-appreciation of existing material, not on any failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the reassessment was invalid, the grounds related to the merits of the assessment became infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee paid to continuing partners to protect the business interest was a valid expenditure. It also ruled that the ALV of the leased property should be the actual rent received, as it was higher than the municipal valuation and comparable cases used by the AO were not appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Memorandum of Association permitted money lending, and the significant interest income earned in the relevant assessment year indicated it was indeed in the money lending business. Since the Assessing Officer had considered the details and taken a possible view, the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for cessation of liability, agreeing that it was not a cessation under Section 41(1) as the liability existed and was paid in a subsequent year. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of the cash credit addition, finding it was a typographical error in the audit report.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not exceed its powers as it followed a previous Tribunal order and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the rental value as per specific sections of the Act, not for a fresh adjudication on its own. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 251(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not exceed its powers as it followed a previous Tribunal order and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the rental value as per specific sections of the Act, not for a fresh adjudication on its own. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 251(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not exceed its powers as it followed a previous Tribunal order and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the rental value as per specific sections of the Act, not for a fresh adjudication on its own. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 251(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings in 2010 meant the orders should have been passed within six months from the end of that month, which did not happen.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the late filing of the audit report was not a bar to the deduction, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to re-examine the deduction based on the purchase discrepancies found by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital loss and MAT credit belonged to the demerging company and there was no specific provision prohibiting their set off in its hands post-demerger. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedents where losses were claimed by the resulting company.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds of appeal were admissible as the facts were available and the omission was inadvertent. The interest income from the tax-free bonds was directed to be allowed as exempt. The TDS credit was also directed to be granted after verification.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance on exempt income to 1%. Other grounds related to payments to BCCI liquidators, interest on securities, bad debts, diminution in investment value, and depreciation on leased assets were decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of warehousing charges and rent paid to co-owners below the TDS threshold are not liable for disallowance. For transportation charges, following a precedent where books were rejected, disallowances for non-deduction of TDS were set aside. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted additions without properly controverting the AO's findings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unsecured loans to the AO for fresh examination due to the CIT(A) considering new evidence. For the Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance, the Tribunal held the second proviso to be retrospective and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for filing the revised return was bona fide, as the additional income was inadvertently omitted and disclosed immediately upon realizing the mistake. Since the AO accepted the revised return without additions, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.