Loading ITAT cases…
325 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous ITAT rulings and High Court judgments. It was held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is allowable, and that external market comparables are valid benchmarks for determining the ALP of inter-unit sales of electricity and steam, even if steam is a by-product.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. It directed the CIT(E) to either treat the application as filed under the correct sub-provision or allow the assessee to file a rectified application, with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders, remanding the applications back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to either treat the application as filed under the correct provision or allow the assessee to file a rectified application, granting an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. It directed the CIT(E) to either treat the application under the correct sub-provision or allow the assessee to file a rectified application, and then decide on merits after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders, remanding the applications back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to either treat the application as filed under the correct provision or allow the assessee to file a rectified application, granting an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous ITAT rulings and High Court judgments. It was held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is allowable, and that external market comparables are valid benchmarks for determining the ALP of inter-unit sales of electricity and steam, even if steam is a by-product.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical defect without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain. Therefore, the order was set aside to allow the assessee to rectify the application or present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's rural background and limited literacy, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after imposing costs on the assessee.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision, holding that the circumstances surrounding the cash receipt constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The CIT(E) was directed to either treat the application under the correct sub-provision or allow the assessee to file a rectified application, and then decide on merits after giving an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on oil field equipment at the rate consistently accepted in its own cases and directed the AO to recompute depreciation. It also allowed depreciation on capitalized renovation expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the issue of proportionate cost of acquisition after statutory surrender of land requires examination of facts and law, and thus cannot be rectified under Section 154. The AO exceeded his jurisdiction by modifying the capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that since the Income-Tax Return of the assessee's father-in-law was filed and not disputed, proving his financial capacity, no addition was warranted. The creditworthiness of the father-in-law was established by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The assessee was directed to explain the nature and sources of bank credits before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's health issues and other circumstances. However, on merits, the Tribunal found the assessee non-compliant during assessment and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, adjustments to book profit under this section were rendered academic. Other grounds were decided based on facts and evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 49(1)(iii)(a) and Explanation 1(b) to Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act, the period of holding of the previous owner must be included. Therefore, the gains arising from the sale of the properties were correctly treated as Long Term Capital Gains.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, adjustments to book profit under this section were rendered academic. Other grounds were decided based on facts and evidence presented.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mst. Katiji and Others. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to lack of effective representation before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee, following a coordinate bench's decision. Consequently, adjustments to book profit under this section were rendered academic. Other grounds were decided based on facts and evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that unspent government grants are not income as the assessee is an implementing agency and the funds are for specific schemes. It also held that CSR expenditure donated to eligible institutions is allowable under Section 80G.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented sale proceeds, and the genuineness of sales was not disputed. The increase in deposits during demonetization was a natural consequence for a trader needing to deposit cash instead of making cash transactions.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding lack of proper notice and opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the Assessees to provide necessary documents and cooperate with the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was instructed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adjudicate afresh.
The Tribunal restored both the issue of unexplained cash credit and the disallowance of travelling expenses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was due to the need for further verification of purchases, sales, and supporting documents.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal held that the waiver of principal amount is not taxable under Section 28(iv) as it was a monetary benefit and not a perquisite in kind, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The Tribunal also affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of interest waiver that was already accounted for in the P&L, but remanded the specific interest waiver of Rs. 56,23,724 for verification.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.
The Tribunal set aside the rejection orders, directing the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessees to present their case. Both parties were found to have failed in their respective obligations during the initial process.