Loading ITAT cases…
88 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the issue should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) needs to examine the facts in light of conflicting Karnataka High Court judgments regarding the eligibility of deduction based on whether the deposited funds were the society's liabilities or its own funds.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted as the order was passed before the scheduled hearing date. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that a judgment can only be followed if the facts are similar. Since the CIT(A) did not compare the facts, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the allowability of the claimed standard deduction while framing the assessment afresh.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to his file. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh speaking and reasoned order after comparing the facts of the present case with the facts of the cited Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal found it proper to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This would be done after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to both parties.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the lack of adequate opportunity. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The Tribunal held that even ex-parte appeals should be decided on merits based on available material.
The Tribunal held that since the search took place on July 25, 2012, any undisclosed income found should be assessed for Assessment Year 2013-14, not 2012-13. Therefore, the addition made for the current assessment year cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings was defective, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is directed to examine whether the investments were made from the society's own funds or out of liabilities, to determine the applicability of different High Court judgments.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for income from marketing agricultural produce and commission/interest from such activities, finding them eligible under Section 80P(2)(a). The issue of deduction for interest earned from deposits in co-operative banks was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration based on specific High Court judgments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed requested an adjournment. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee gets a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the agreements were essentially for the purchase of land and did not constitute works contracts. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal found that the factual distinction between two High Court judgments was crucial. Since this factual aspect was not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that since the assessees have now obtained PAN and it was not established that they were liable to pay advance tax, the appeals should be admitted and decided on merit. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the facts in the current assessment year were similar to a previous year where the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that since the difference between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was less than 10%, no addition was justified. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) needs to examine the facts in light of conflicting Karnataka High Court judgments regarding the eligibility of deduction based on whether the deposited funds were the society's liabilities or its own funds.
The Tribunal found that the notices were not served on the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined the facts of the present case in light of relevant High Court judgments. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after examining the facts against the cited precedents.
The Tribunal held that electronic filing of Form 35 was mandatory only for assessees required to file their income tax returns electronically. Since this was not the case for the assessee, the manual filing was permissible. The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for income from marketing agricultural produce and commission/interest from such activities, finding them eligible under Section 80P(2)(a). The issue of deduction for interest earned from deposits in co-operative banks was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration based on specific High Court judgments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The Tribunal held that even ex-parte appeals should be decided on merits based on available material.
The Tribunal found that the notices were not served on the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessees have now obtained PAN and it was not established that they were liable to pay advance tax, the appeals should be admitted and decided on merit. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessees have now obtained PAN and it was not established that they were liable to pay advance tax, the appeals should be admitted and decided on merit. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT denied registration without ensuring proper service of notice and affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, following established precedents from the ITAT and the jurisdictional High Court. These precedents allow business expenditure even if the actual business activity has not fully commenced, provided preliminary activities have begun.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore Bench heard the appeals filed by the assessee. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It remanded the issue of characterization of services for re-examination by the TPO and allowed the ground related to Section 10A deduction based on a High Court ruling. Interest under Sections 234B and 234D was upheld but directed to be recomputed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order, which determined the ALP of management fees as Nil, could not be sustained. It directed the TPO/AO to re-examine the issue de novo, considering all evidence filed by the assessee and any additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that a property can be considered a residential house for Section 54F if it is capable of being used for residence, even without all civic amenities. The presence of a watchman residing in the shed indicated habitability, and the property was described as residential in official documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 5,75,000 as it was a brought-forward liability and not an unexplained cash credit for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains should be considered operating in nature for margin computation, aligning with previous ITAT decisions. It also upheld the grant of risk adjustment to the margins of comparable companies.
The Tribunal held that KPTCL made a bona fide estimate of its employees' income under the head 'Salaries' by considering them as State Government employees entitled to full exemption for unutilized leave encashment. Therefore, KPTCL discharged its obligation under Section 192.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the AO were invalid because they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also invalid.