Loading ITAT cases…
59 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found contradictions in the assessee's submissions regarding HUF status and the CIT(A)'s order being ex-parte despite noting the appearance of the assessee's AR. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking, and reasoned decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as defective without considering the CPC intimation as a valid demand notice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is to be considered as application of income for charitable trusts and that excess application of income can be carried forward to subsequent years. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be in line with established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements, including that of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, held that there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the allowance of depreciation and carry forward of unabsorbed deficit.
The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's incarceration and non-receipt of assessment orders as valid causes. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.
The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's incarceration and non-receipt of assessment orders as valid causes. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.
The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's incarceration and non-receipt of assessment orders as valid causes. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.
The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's incarceration and non-receipt of assessment orders as valid causes. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of disposing of the matter ex-parte without deciding the adjournment petition was incorrect. However, considering the assessee's non-cooperative attitude before the AO, the matter was remanded subject to a cost.
The Tribunal held that there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's incarceration and non-receipt of assessment orders as valid causes. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s approach of disposing of the matter ex-parte without deciding the adjournment petition was incorrect. However, considering the assessee's non-cooperative attitude before the AO, the matter was remanded subject to a cost.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be pressed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that it was necessary to verify whether the assessee was registered under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act or the Karnataka Cooperative Society Act to determine eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the impact of the assessee's registration under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1977. The AO is to ascertain the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P based on this verification.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the gift, setting aside the lower authorities' orders and restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The addition for advance tax was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide material evidence to prove the genuineness of the gift, including the father's creditworthiness and capacity to gift the amount. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(Appeals) was caused by pursuing an alternative remedy (Section 154 applications) and that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Appeals) were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing that the assessee be confronted with investigation reports and statements used against them. The AO was also directed to allow cross-examination of parties whose testimony is relied upon.
The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds as the law does not mandate enclosing the original demand notice. The tribunal found that the appeal was e-filed with the demand notice attached and that the merits of the case were not considered.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even if its cost was treated as application of income, as the relevant amendment to Section 11(6) is prospective. It also held that excess application of income from earlier years can be set off against the current year's income, following established High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's direction to disallow Rs. 4,19,545 under Section 14A was not justified without examining various aspects like receipt of exempt income and the quantum of disallowance. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO must provide the assessee with all relied-upon documents and statements for rebuttal and allow cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(Appeals) was caused by pursuing an alternative remedy (Section 154 applications) and that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Appeals) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that there was no transfer of the capital asset during the previous year relevant to AY 2006-07. The Tribunal reasoned that for Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act to be attracted, the conditions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act must be met. This requires the transferee to have taken possession in part performance of the contract, or being in possession, to continue in possession in furtherance of the contract, and to have performed or be willing to perform their part. The Tribunal noted that Clause 1 of the JDA explicitly stated that the authority granted to the builder was not possession in part performance under Section 53A. Furthermore, the subsequent MOU dated August 16, 2006, and the delivery of legal possession on April 22, 2006, indicated that possession was not taken or retained in part performance of the JDA during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal concluded that the possession granted under the JDA was permissive and on behalf of the assessee, not in an independent capacity as a purchaser. Therefore, the invocation of Section 2(47)(v) was not proper, and the assessment of capital gains in AY 2006-07 was held to be bad and deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a letter from the buyer to the AO and CIT(A) stating the full amount was for the agricultural land, but these authorities did not consider it.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee regarding both the tenure of deduction and the nature of manufacturing activities. However, a discrepancy was found between the assessee's claimed product (instruments and apparatus for detecting ionizing radiators) and the EOU status registration (Arrays & Arrays Assembly).
The Tribunal held that the 'onsite revenue filter' should be applied consistently to all comparables, not just selectively. The entire transfer pricing matter was restored to the DRP for a fresh decision after applying this filter to all comparables.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the tax effect for each assessment year must be considered individually, and the revenue cannot rely on a cumulative tax effect from a common order to justify appeals where individual tax effects are below the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable, following the Karnataka High Court's decision which stated that individual tax effect per assessment year must be considered, not cumulative effect in a common order. The High Court found such provisions in CBDT circulars discriminatory.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its miscellaneous petition and appeal as the revenue had no objection. Consequently, both the miscellaneous petition and the appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking a clear decision on the assessee's grounds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-compute operating margins considering specific directions from a previous year's order and allowed deduction for prior period expenses based on crystallization of liability. Provisions for expenses were allowed upon payment of TDS, subject to crystallization.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was a Souhardha Credit Co-operative Ltd. and referred to a previous decision where it was held that a cooperative society must be registered under the Cooperative Societies Act to claim deduction under Section 80P. The matter was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is in the nature of compensation and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice and order were bad in law because they did not clearly specify whether the allegation was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of clarity violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the revenue cannot file appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to entertain a legal claim even if not made in the original or revised return, provided the necessary facts are on record. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT. Therefore, the present appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed before the ITAT. Therefore, the present appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have examined the Form 26A submitted by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) after considering the Form 26A.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to explain the discrepancies. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication in light of the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO had misunderstood the nature of the assessee's business and that the turnover figure used for addition was not properly established. The Tribunal found no reason why Section 44AD should not apply, as declared by the assessee.