Loading ITAT cases…
673 orders · Page 5 of 14
The Tribunal held that the profits arising from the sale of shares were indeed capital gains and not business income, as the assessee maintained a distinction between trading and investment and used its own funds for investments.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee also paid VAT on these purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that approval of the R&D facility by DSIR is sufficient for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), not the approval of specific expenses. It also held that the guarantee commission charged at 1% by the assessee was at Arm's Length Price (ALP), following High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal noted that while the transporter's PAN was provided, the assessee failed to submit the required information in the prescribed format under Section 194C(7). Therefore, the issue was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lacs, and the tax effect in this case being below that limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction, agreeing that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the profits arising from the sale of shares were indeed capital gains and not business income, as the assessee maintained a distinction between trading and investment and used its own funds for investments.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for bad and doubtful debts is not allowable in AY 2012-13 as RBI approval for write-off was obtained only in AY 2015-16. The issue of brought forward losses from AY 2007-08 was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the eligibility of deduction under Section 80IB(10) for SRA projects, considering the retrospective nature of amendments and notifications, was a debatable issue. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars could not be levied.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from the self-owned property should be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property'. This decision followed the Tribunal's own earlier rulings and Supreme Court judgments on similar matters.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of the principal loan amount is not taxable under Section 28(iv) as it is a cash receipt, not a benefit other than money. It is also not taxable under Section 41(1) as it does not represent the remission of a trading liability.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income, following the decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were to be dismissed. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions were found later.
The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of purchases was doubtful, the assessee had made sales and incurred expenses. Therefore, a reasonable profit could be estimated on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 because the issues dealt with by the Commissioner were already part of the appeal before the first appellate authority, leading to a merger of the AO's order with the appellate order. Therefore, the Commissioner had no power to revise these matters.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the eligibility of deduction under Section 80IB(10) for SRA projects, considering the retrospective nature of amendments and notifications, was a debatable issue. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars could not be levied.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue could not point out any exception to this circular.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering the nature of the business and the fact that the sales were not disputed. The Revenue failed to establish that the sales were not affected by these purchases.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were to be dismissed. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions were found later.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in all appeals was below the prescribed monetary limit and no exceptions applied, the appeals were to be dismissed. Liberty was granted to the revenue to seek recall if exceptions were found later.
The Tribunal held that the entire land was acquired as part of an indivisible composite industrial undertaking and formed part of business assets. Therefore, the interest attributable to the balance land was allowable as business expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). The land development expenditure issue was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that additions made in a Section 153A assessment require incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was produced by the Revenue, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) should be allowed. It relied on a co-ordinate bench's decision which stated that the withdrawal of recognition of the payee institution subsequent to the donation does not affect the payer's claim.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) should be allowed. It relied on a co-ordinate bench's decision which stated that the withdrawal of recognition of the payee institution subsequent to the donation does not affect the payer's claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. This was based on the CBDT's circular revising the monetary limit for appeals to the ITAT, which the current appeal's tax effect fell below.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of gold bars was not justified as they were purchased in an earlier assessment year. The diamond jewellery was also considered explained, considering the assessee's status and the fact that it belonged to his wife, who was an independent assessee.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular on monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals did not survive for consideration due to the CBDT circular amending monetary limits for appeal filing. The appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed.