Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by not providing necessary details to the Assessing Officer. The First Appellate Authority also erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was the final capital balance from a dissolved firm, not income. As per Section 45(4), tax liability on dissolution of a firm accrues to the firm, not the partner.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proven possession and use of the office premises from August 1, 2011, making it eligible for depreciation. The cross-objection by the assessee regarding disallowance under Section 14A was also allowed.
The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the assessee failed to prove the subsistence of liability. However, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal corrected a typographical error in the previous order, changing the amount from Rs.75,00,000/- to Rs.7,50,90,000/-. This correction was made to ensure the accurate representation of the financial figure.
The Tribunal held that the AO should verify the acquisition of shares before the assessee attained majority and the disclosure of dividend income. It also directed that the correct figures of sale of shares and capital gains should be adopted for taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not verify the supplier and the assessee had provided supporting documents. Citing precedents, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the loans to be genuine based on the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The AO's reliance on a retracted statement was deemed insufficient.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance made by the AO was excessive compared to the assessee's actual administrative expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to a reasonable amount.
The Tribunal held that penalty for non-compliance should be imposed judiciously, considering all circumstances. Since the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance and later provided all details, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and restrict indirect expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It also sustained the deletion of disallowance on motor car depreciation.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was based were set aside and the income assessed was equal to the income returned, there was no justification for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. As the Revenue did not provide any exceptions, the appeals were deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration could not be retrospective and would only be effective from June 1, 2010. Since the assessment years in question were prior to this date, the denial of exemption was not valid. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance by establishing the proportion to the dividend income relative to dividend-yielding investments, following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal held that purchases from companies where specific individuals (partners/directors) were involved should be deleted based on previous rulings. For other purchases from the same group, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The issue of interest disallowance was also restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals below a certain tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 directs that departmental appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. As the present appeal did not fall under any exceptions and its tax effect was below the limit, it was not maintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as the Assessing Officer had already adjudicated the issues in favour of the assessee while giving effect to the revision order. The appeal had become academic.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and restrict indirect expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It also sustained the deletion of disallowance on motor car depreciation.
The Tribunal held that service tax on insurance commission is the liability of the insurance company and not income of the agents. Therefore, TDS is not deductible on the service tax component.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the concession by the Revenue's representative that the tax effect was below the threshold limit for filing appeals to the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections against the reopening and did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of waiting four weeks after communication of such an order, as per jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal rectified its earlier order, stating that no penalty should be levied on the addition of the interest refund. This correction was made because the Assessing Officer had not imposed any penalty on this item.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to treat the claimed capital gain as an unexplained cash credit. The assessee's claim of short-term capital gain was rejected as a fabricated story.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove genuineness, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. Following Gujarat High Court's precedent, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer, after considering the details of ESOP discount during rectification proceedings, was satisfied with the assessee's contention that it was an allowable expense. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous, and the conditions for revision under Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an illegal business are not allowable as per Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's admission of involvement in Hawala activities and the unretracted statements supported this decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for reimbursement expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence of reimbursement and TDS deduction by recipients. The matter of Section 14A disallowance was restored to the AO for computation under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The disallowance for post-retirement benefits was deleted, following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an illegal business are not allowable as per Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's admission of involvement in Hawala activities and the unretracted statements supported this decision.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an illegal business are not allowable as per Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's admission of involvement in Hawala activities and the unretracted statements supported this decision.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an illegal business are not allowable as per Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's admission of involvement in Hawala activities and the unretracted statements supported this decision.
The Tribunal noted that a similar ground of appeal in a prior assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the current appeal to the Assessing Officer for decision.
The Tribunal held that assembling watch parts constitutes manufacturing activity, especially when the end product is commercially known differently. The acceptance of sales tax and excise returns by respective departments further supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was claiming a business loss, not just an expenditure under Section 37(1). Considering the legal opinion and the fact that the transaction was genuine, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the write-off.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were not genuine. However, since the sales were not disputed, the addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in the unproved purchases.
The Tribunal restored the issue of LIC maturity amount to the AO for fresh examination due to procedural irregularities in the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding miscellaneous expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 10% of the expenses.
The Tribunal held that Section 271AA, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2012, which imposes penalty for non-reporting of international transactions, was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The law prevailing at the time of filing the return should be applied.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an illegal business are not allowable as per Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's admission of involvement in Hawala activities and the unretracted statements supported this decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for infrastructure development activities, partly allowing the claim for certain projects. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal agreed that the reopening of assessment was invalid as no new information came to the AO's notice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without properly adjudicating the issues of reopening and the merits of the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted both issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the payment to the foreign company was subject to Section 40(a)(i) and not Section 40(a)(ia). However, since the assessee claimed depreciation and did not prove the software was 'off-the-shelf', the disallowance was sustained to the extent of depreciation claimed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of business expenses was based on an inadvertent error and required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A concerning interest expenditure and administrative expenses was also remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) can be made if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments yielding exempt income. It also held that Section 14A cannot be applied for computing book profit under Section 115JB, except as stipulated in clause (f) of Explanation 1.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for infrastructure development activities, partly allowing the claim for certain projects. For AY 2007-08, the Tribunal agreed that the reopening of assessment was invalid as no new information came to the AO's notice.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove genuineness, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. Following Gujarat High Court's precedent, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as there was no transfer of capital asset from the firm to the retiring partner. The addition made by the AO was consequential to a previous order that was later overruled by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it contradicted his own finding that the purchases were bogus but restricted the addition without proper reasoning. Therefore, the Pr. CIT validly revised the order.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of purchases was not proven, the sales turnover was not disputed. Therefore, the entire purchase amount could not be treated as income, but only the profit element embedded therein. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, following a precedent in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10.