Loading ITAT cases…
807 orders · Page 6 of 17
The Tribunal held that capital gains cannot be taxed until the consideration (in this case, the built-up area) is received or accrued. Since the project was not complete and the assessee had not received the built-up area, no capital gain arose in the assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as the additional income was offered due to survey action and the assessee had consistently contended that there was no excess stock. The Tribunal noted that statements made during survey proceedings lack evidentiary value unless substantiated by corroborative evidence, which was absent.
The Tribunal held that since the export commission was paid outside India for services rendered outside India, and the non-residents had no business connection in India, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source. Therefore, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that rental income from unsold premises should be treated as 'Income from House Property', following a jurisdictional High Court decision. It also upheld the deletion of generator diesel and maintenance expenses, finding that the assessee had produced sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, dealing with international transactions, presupposes the existence of 'income'. Since no income had accrued or been received by the assessee, a notional income could not be brought to tax under Section 92.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding Section 10AA deduction was covered in favour of the assessee by earlier ITAT decisions. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on Section 2(22)(e), holding that loans from companies with common shareholders are taxable as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for the foreign advances. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specify the exact limb of the section under which the penalty was being levied. This non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer vitiated the entire penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee for multiple assessment years. No distinguishing features or contrary facts were presented by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee for multiple assessment years. No distinguishing features or contrary facts were presented by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the manner in which the transactions were recorded, by crediting and debiting in the name of another company (M/s. Wisdom Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) instead of directly reflecting the loan, was misleading and not a proper recording of entries. This was considered a scheme of layering to hide the movement of money.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is triggered only when there is actual receipt of exempt income. Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that repetitive transactions in certain scrips indicated a business motive, confirming the classification of a portion of the gains as business income. However, it directed the AO to allow related business expenses for this income.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40A(ia) is retrospective. The issue was set aside to the AO to verify if the recipient parties had included the receipts in their income.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40A(ia) is retrospective. The issue was set aside to the AO to verify if the recipient parties had included the receipts in their income.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for legal and financial advisory services were inextricably linked to the sale of shares and were therefore allowable as a deduction under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act. The issue regarding the set-off of unabsorbed long-term capital loss was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect in each case did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires actual receipt of exempt income for disallowance of related expenses. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of depreciation on assets acquired on demerger had been consistently decided against the assessee by coordinate benches in its own cases for preceding assessment years. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance under Section 14A, as admitted by the assessee's counsel, citing a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that gift expenses are personal and not deductible. However, it found the disallowance of 15% on other expenses to be on the higher side and directed the AO to restrict it to 10%.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchase price should not be added as income. Following High Court precedents, it directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition without providing the assessee with a copy of the statement and an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to support the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of protective additions related to trust payments, finding no reason to sustain them when substantive additions in the beneficiary's case were deleted. For unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh examination with the evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening of assessment was vitiated by inaccurate facts stated by the AO in the reasons for reopening. The AO had claimed to have issued a notice under section 133(6) before recording reasons, which was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot substitute his judgment for that of the businessman regarding the reasonableness of expenditure. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own case, the disallowance of employee costs was set aside.
The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. It held that the AO was not justified in concluding that the business arrangement generated more than ordinary profits, and thus the deduction under Section 10B should be allowed as claimed.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening but found that the entire purchase price should not be added. Following High Court precedents, it directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the profit element embedded in the purchases.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. The appeal concerning the VAT penalty was also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on assets sold and leased back, citing previous ITAT and High Court decisions. It also ruled that disallowing notional interest on loans to subsidiaries for violating RBI guidelines without proof of penalty or fine was incorrect.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 as withdrawn due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of Section 14A expenses, following earlier Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 as withdrawn due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of Section 14A expenses, following earlier Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that the 'on money' addition was not justifiable as the recovered documents did not connect with the flat purchase. It also held that advances from a company in a running account for business expediency are not taxable as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the concession by the Revenue's representative that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below Rs. 20 lacs, which is the threshold for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the quantum additions in dispute was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the revenue's appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the case.