Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that while income and expenditure are generally recognized on an accrual basis, expenses cannot be claimed as a deduction unless crystallized. However, if an expenditure spills over to a subsequent year due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and is a consistent business practice, it may be allowed.
The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, there must be an actual payment by the company to the assessee. In this case, liabilities were transferred to the assessee, increasing their obligation, but no actual money was paid by the companies to the assessee, nor were assets distributed. Therefore, the transaction did not fall under deemed dividend provisions.
For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal held that an obligation to furnish AIR under Section 285BA arises only when there is an existence of a reportable or specified transaction. In the absence of any such transactions, the assessee is not obliged to file the AIR, and thus the levy of penalty under Section 271FA is unjustified. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument regarding the absence of reportable transactions and rejected the revenue's contention against entertaining this argument. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the penalties were cancelled. For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal found that while the assessee filed supplementary returns rectifying defects, it was not within the time stipulated in the notice. However, considering the insufficient time given by the DIT (4 days) and the pressure of year-end closing work, the Tribunal deemed it a reasonable cause for not furnishing the supplementary returns within the stipulated period. Therefore, no penalty was leviable for the delay in filing supplementary returns for these AYs. For AY 2016-17, the assessee filed the supplementary return with a significant delay (210 days) beyond the allowed time. No reasonable cause was provided for this delay. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the period of default in furnishing the original return and the supplementary return rectifying defects for this AY, directing the DIT to restrict the penalty to the period of default. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 were allowed partly, and the appeal for AY 2016-17 was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, irrespective of investments made. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not competent to decide the eligibility of expenditure for deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility was approved by the competent authority. The assessee's R&D facility was approved, and the goods manufactured were specialized electronic equipment, not mere office machines.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on loose sheets found at a third party's premises, which was denied by the assessee, could not be sustained. The onus was on the Assessing Officer to prove the payment, and the reliance on Section 69A and the cited case law was misplaced as no search was conducted on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amortization loss on merger was not allowable as the acquired banks had not filed returns and their losses were exempt under Section 80P. Regarding amortization of premium on government securities, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to examine if the securities were held under HTM category and amortize the premium accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the issue of Section 80IA deduction and the validity of reopening under Section 148 were covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The revenue failed to provide contrary material or evidence of a stay on the previous order.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF, if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is allowable. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal held that an obligation to furnish AIR under Section 285BA arises only when there is an existence of a reportable or specified transaction. In the absence of any such transactions, the assessee is not obliged to file the AIR, and thus the levy of penalty under Section 271FA is unjustified. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument regarding the absence of reportable transactions and rejected the revenue's contention against entertaining this argument. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the penalties were cancelled. For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal found that while the assessee filed supplementary returns rectifying defects, it was not within the time stipulated in the notice. However, considering the insufficient time given by the DIT (4 days) and the pressure of year-end closing work, the Tribunal deemed it a reasonable cause for not furnishing the supplementary returns within the stipulated period. Therefore, no penalty was leviable for the delay in filing supplementary returns for these AYs. For AY 2016-17, the assessee filed the supplementary return with a significant delay (210 days) beyond the allowed time. No reasonable cause was provided for this delay. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the period of default in furnishing the original return and the supplementary return rectifying defects for this AY, directing the DIT to restrict the penalty to the period of default. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 were allowed partly, and the appeal for AY 2016-17 was also partly allowed.
For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal held that an obligation to furnish AIR under Section 285BA arises only when there is an existence of a reportable or specified transaction. In the absence of any such transactions, the assessee is not obliged to file the AIR, and thus the levy of penalty under Section 271FA is unjustified. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument regarding the absence of reportable transactions and rejected the revenue's contention against entertaining this argument. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the penalties were cancelled. For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal found that while the assessee filed supplementary returns rectifying defects, it was not within the time stipulated in the notice. However, considering the insufficient time given by the DIT (4 days) and the pressure of year-end closing work, the Tribunal deemed it a reasonable cause for not furnishing the supplementary returns within the stipulated period. Therefore, no penalty was leviable for the delay in filing supplementary returns for these AYs. For AY 2016-17, the assessee filed the supplementary return with a significant delay (210 days) beyond the allowed time. No reasonable cause was provided for this delay. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the period of default in furnishing the original return and the supplementary return rectifying defects for this AY, directing the DIT to restrict the penalty to the period of default. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 were allowed partly, and the appeal for AY 2016-17 was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The cross objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as they were supportive of the CIT(A)'s orders and academic in nature.
For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal held that an obligation to furnish AIR under Section 285BA arises only when there is an existence of a reportable or specified transaction. In the absence of any such transactions, the assessee is not obliged to file the AIR, and thus the levy of penalty under Section 271FA is unjustified. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument regarding the absence of reportable transactions and rejected the revenue's contention against entertaining this argument. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the penalties were cancelled. For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal found that while the assessee filed supplementary returns rectifying defects, it was not within the time stipulated in the notice. However, considering the insufficient time given by the DIT (4 days) and the pressure of year-end closing work, the Tribunal deemed it a reasonable cause for not furnishing the supplementary returns within the stipulated period. Therefore, no penalty was leviable for the delay in filing supplementary returns for these AYs. For AY 2016-17, the assessee filed the supplementary return with a significant delay (210 days) beyond the allowed time. No reasonable cause was provided for this delay. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the period of default in furnishing the original return and the supplementary return rectifying defects for this AY, directing the DIT to restrict the penalty to the period of default. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 were allowed partly, and the appeal for AY 2016-17 was also partly allowed.
For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal held that an obligation to furnish AIR under Section 285BA arises only when there is an existence of a reportable or specified transaction. In the absence of any such transactions, the assessee is not obliged to file the AIR, and thus the levy of penalty under Section 271FA is unjustified. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument regarding the absence of reportable transactions and rejected the revenue's contention against entertaining this argument. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the penalties were cancelled. For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal found that while the assessee filed supplementary returns rectifying defects, it was not within the time stipulated in the notice. However, considering the insufficient time given by the DIT (4 days) and the pressure of year-end closing work, the Tribunal deemed it a reasonable cause for not furnishing the supplementary returns within the stipulated period. Therefore, no penalty was leviable for the delay in filing supplementary returns for these AYs. For AY 2016-17, the assessee filed the supplementary return with a significant delay (210 days) beyond the allowed time. No reasonable cause was provided for this delay. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the period of default in furnishing the original return and the supplementary return rectifying defects for this AY, directing the DIT to restrict the penalty to the period of default. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 were allowed partly, and the appeal for AY 2016-17 was also partly allowed.
For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal held that an obligation to furnish AIR under Section 285BA arises only when there is an existence of a reportable or specified transaction. In the absence of any such transactions, the assessee is not obliged to file the AIR, and thus the levy of penalty under Section 271FA is unjustified. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument regarding the absence of reportable transactions and rejected the revenue's contention against entertaining this argument. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the penalties were cancelled. For AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16, the Tribunal found that while the assessee filed supplementary returns rectifying defects, it was not within the time stipulated in the notice. However, considering the insufficient time given by the DIT (4 days) and the pressure of year-end closing work, the Tribunal deemed it a reasonable cause for not furnishing the supplementary returns within the stipulated period. Therefore, no penalty was leviable for the delay in filing supplementary returns for these AYs. For AY 2016-17, the assessee filed the supplementary return with a significant delay (210 days) beyond the allowed time. No reasonable cause was provided for this delay. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty for the period of default in furnishing the original return and the supplementary return rectifying defects for this AY, directing the DIT to restrict the penalty to the period of default. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 were allowed partly, and the appeal for AY 2016-17 was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the issue of Section 80IA deduction and the validity of reopening under Section 148 were covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The revenue failed to provide contrary material or evidence of a stay on the previous order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the issue of Section 80IA deduction and the validity of reopening under Section 148 were covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The revenue failed to provide contrary material or evidence of a stay on the previous order.
The Tribunal held that the amortization loss on merger was not allowable as the acquired banks had not filed returns and their losses were exempt under Section 80P. Regarding amortization of premium on government securities, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to examine if the securities were held under HTM category and amortize the premium accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the amortization loss on merger was not allowable as the acquired banks had not filed returns and their losses were exempt under Section 80P. Regarding amortization of premium on government securities, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to examine if the securities were held under HTM category and amortize the premium accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the amortization loss on merger was not allowable as the acquired banks had not filed returns and their losses were exempt under Section 80P. Regarding amortization of premium on government securities, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to examine if the securities were held under HTM category and amortize the premium accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No.03/2018, which was retrospective. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No.03/2018, which was retrospective. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No.03/2018, which was retrospective in nature. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they were supportive of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No.03/2018, which stipulated a monetary limit for appeals. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they were supportive of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No.03/2018, which was retrospective. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed additions of unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna for multiple assessment years due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal confirmed additions for unsecured loans from Sri K. Harikrishna due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence of source and genuineness. The claim for set-off of house property loss was also dismissed for lack of evidence that the loan was utilized for the assessee's property.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The cross objections filed by the assessee were also dismissed as they were supportive of the CIT(A)'s orders and academic in nature.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had correctly allowed carry forward of business loss and speculation loss separately, without allowing set-off of speculation loss against business income. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271 read with Section 274 was invalid because the AO did not strike off the irrelevant column, failing to specify the exact offense for which the penalty was proposed. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the AO was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals regarding the estimation rate and allowed the assessee's cross-appeals partly by upholding depreciation on crates and remitting the issue of interest on crates to the AO. Revenue's appeal on tax effect was also dismissed.