Loading ITAT cases…
807 orders · Page 7 of 17
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also remitted to the CIT(A) to be decided after the quantum appeal is resolved.
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 assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by making incorrect deductions while computing book profit under Section 115JB. However, it directed the AO to restrict the penalty to the tax evaded amount, not the total tax liability.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of penalty related to depreciation disallowance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the quantum assessment for depreciation was remanded. The penalty on disallowance of expenses was confirmed as it was not agitated.
The Tribunal held that making an addition for the same income in AY 2012-13 when it was already disclosed in AY 2013-14 would amount to double taxation. The issue was remanded to the AO to verify the disclosure in AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the terms and conditions of the sale of the subsidiary to a third party were relevant and had not been properly examined. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the grounds of appeal were identical to those previously adjudicated by the ITAT, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, there was no merit in the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO had properly examined the issue of performance bonus, considering the assessee's explanations and evidence. Since the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was unjustified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was because the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(A) was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a co-operative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4) as it did not satisfy the cumulative conditions laid down in Section 5(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the period of holding for capital gains should be reckoned from the date of the purchase agreement, not the subsequent registration date. This is because the agreement, along with part payment and transfer of rights, constituted a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in dismissing appeals solely based on the quantum of delay when the explanation for the delay was consistent. The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the allotment letter and payment made within the stipulated period, along with High Court rulings, established the assessee's right to the property for Section 54 exemption.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, noting that the documents were not examined by the lower authorities. The case was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment after considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction by providing supporting documents. The statement of the third party, which was not corroborated and was found to be inconsistent, could not be the sole basis for rejecting the transaction.
The Tribunal held that since the facts and circumstances were similar to previous assessment years where the Tribunal had restricted the proportionate disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since this appeal did not fall under any exceptions and the tax effect was below the limit, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were not royalty and that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Consequently, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats held as stock-in-trade by a real estate developer cannot be assessed under the head 'income from house property' by notionally computing annual letting value. Such income should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. As the current appeal fell within this limit and was not covered by exceptions, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to cross-examine the suppliers, as their denial seemed contrary to the evidence presented. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.
The ITAT noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. As the present appeal fell within this limit and was not covered by any exceptions, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Consequently, the attribution of profits by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that profits from the operation of ships in international traffic are taxable only in the country of residence (Switzerland) as per Article 22(1) of the India-Switzerland DTAA. The ships were not effectively connected with the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty for concealment of income when the AO had initiated and imposed it for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeals, the Tribunal reduced the addition on account of bogus purchases from 3% to 2%, finding that the purchases were used for exports and thus VAT was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for purchases and made payments through banking channels. Since the explanation remained unproved but not disproved, and there was no conclusive evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's non-resident status and the source of income were not disputed, the income could not be treated as unexplained. It directed that the income be taxed at the special rates prescribed under the Act.
The ITAT noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs should not be filed or pressed. As the present appeal fell within this limit and was not covered by any exceptions, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that Jubilant does not constitute a DAPE of DPIFI in India, as Jubilant operates as an independent business entity. The restrictions in the agreement were to safeguard brand value and royalty income, not to establish control for PE purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal, considering various judicial pronouncements, held that while purchases may have been made from bogus parties, the purchases themselves were not entirely bogus. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal noted a CBDT circular (No. 3/2018) instructing that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. As these appeals fell under this category and were not covered by exceptions, they were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or should be withdrawn. As these appeals fall within that limit and are not covered by exceptions, they are not maintainable.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was held invalid by the CIT(A) and this was not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, any adjudication on the merits of the case became purposeless.
The Tribunal held that income from inland haulage charges is directly connected to shipping operations and therefore not taxable in India as per Article 8 of the India-Belgium DTAA. This decision was based on consistent rulings by the ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal held that the receipts were for rendition of services, even though involving scientific equipment, and not for the use of equipment itself. The customer did not have an independent right to use the equipment.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are invalid if the assessment order itself records that the issue was raised and decided during the original assessment. Since the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion after due deliberation based on the facts provided by the assessee, the reassessment was hit by the principle of 'change of opinion'.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 instructs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. As this appeal falls within that limit and is not covered by any exceptions, it is not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted a CBDT circular instructing that departmental appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. As these appeals fell within that limit and were not covered by exceptions, they were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest paid by the Indian branch of a banking institution to its head office is allowable as a deduction for computing the income of the Indian PE. It also held that such interest income is not chargeable to tax in India.
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 was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 Lacs as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.
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 granted liberty to move a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under exceptions.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is received by the assessee, then no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.