Loading ITAT cases…
33 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the AO violated principles of natural justice by issuing a notice with insufficient time for hearing and completing the assessment ex-parte. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the loose sheets relied upon by the AO were not reliable evidence. The CIT(A) had correctly noted discrepancies between the loose sheets and bank statements, and the lack of corroborating evidence for cash payments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on the appointed date of hearing and made no request for adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on the appointed date of hearing and made no request for adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on the appointed date of hearing and made no request for adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant year. This decision followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s direction to compute Section 10A deduction for each STPI unit separately, following the Karnataka High Court decision. It also held that bad debts are operating in nature for transfer pricing purposes.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation, after the removal of the eight-year ceiling by the Finance Act, 2001, can be carried forward indefinitely. This decision was based on the jurisdictional Karnataka High Court and Gujarat High Court judgments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on the appointed date of hearing and made no request for adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Following precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, overlooking the assessee's application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found this approach eccentric and remitted the matter back.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the time limit, the assessment order passed by the AO was bad in law. Therefore, no adjudication on merits was required.
The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The issue of depreciation on audio/video conferencing equipment was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on whether the equipment is functionally dependent on computers or has independent existence.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act is only for travel within India. Since employees traveled abroad, the assessee ought to have deducted TDS on the amounts paid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the loose sheets relied upon by the AO were not reliable evidence. The CIT(A) had correctly noted discrepancies between the loose sheets and bank statements, and the lack of corroborating evidence for cash payments.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The CBDT circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a previous assessment year was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on specific High Court judgments. Finding no change in facts, the Tribunal also remanded the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that Section 54F is a beneficial provision to be interpreted liberally. The assessee's intention to purchase a residential house was evident, and the final acquisition of a property within the prescribed period should entitle them to the exemption.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 115JB applicability to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication. It also remanded the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 80P(4) hinges on whether the assessee possesses a license from the RBI to conduct banking business. Since the lower authorities did not examine this factual aspect, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issuance of a TDS certificate to the assessee for interest payments was inconsistent with the assessee's claim of direct transactions between the company and lenders. The lower authorities had not properly examined these factual discrepancies.
The Tribunal held that excess application of funds by a charitable trust can be carried forward and adjusted against future income, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation.
The Tribunal held that a certificate from the Tahsildar, produced for the first time before the ITAT, constituted new evidence. This evidence required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of income from mango sales.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity of hearing and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after granting a personal hearing. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Karnataka Flood Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained unsecured loans was not justified as the loan creditors confirmed the transactions from their bank accounts, and the AO failed to prove the money belonged to the assessee. The proportionate disallowance of interest was also deleted as the primary addition was deleted and the AO's calculation was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated principles of natural justice by issuing a notice with insufficient time for hearing and completing the assessment ex-parte. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration agreed upon in the agreement dated 11.11.2013 was more than the guidance value for agricultural land at that time. It also considered the amendment to Section 50C regarding the date of agreement for determining the full value of consideration.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not addressed the crucial factual aspect of whether the land was agricultural and if it could be transferred to a company without conversion. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the grounds regarding depreciation and foreign exchange loss were not properly adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant year. This decision followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.