Loading ITAT cases…
179 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS returns as non-est. Under Section 251(1)(c) of the IT Act, the CIT(A) cannot go beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which in this case was the validity of the Section 234E fee levy.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS returns as non-est. Under Section 251(1)(c) of the IT Act, the CIT(A) cannot go beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which in this case was the validity of the Section 234E fee levy.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E) before the rejection order was passed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), noting that the reasons provided were the same as in other cases where a shorter delay was condoned. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS returns as non-est. Under Section 251(1)(c) of the IT Act, the CIT(A) cannot go beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which in this case was the validity of the Section 234E fee levy.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS returns as non-est. Under Section 251(1)(c) of the IT Act, the CIT(A) cannot go beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which in this case was the validity of the Section 234E fee levy.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot disregard the book results and treat forgone profit as expenditure without invoking specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's case for AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned (Rs. 18,500). For AY 2014-15, the CIT(A)'s confirmation of disallowance to the extent of the entire dividend income was upheld, as the assessee did not appeal this aspect.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot disregard the book results and treat forgone profit as expenditure without invoking specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's case for AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), noting that the reasons provided were the same as in other cases where a shorter delay was condoned. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), noting that the reasons provided were the same as in other cases where a shorter delay was condoned. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS returns as non-est. Under Section 251(1)(c) of the IT Act, the CIT(A) cannot go beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which in this case was the validity of the Section 234E fee levy.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his powers by declaring the TDS returns as non-est. Under Section 251(1)(c) of the IT Act, the CIT(A) cannot go beyond the subject matter of the appeal, which in this case was the validity of the Section 234E fee levy.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is directed to examine the facts in light of relevant High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to his file. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh speaking order after comparing the facts of the present case with the cited judgments, particularly regarding the source of funds deposited in the bank.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to his file for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) is directed to examine the facts in light of the judgments in Totagars Co-operative Sale Society, Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd., and The Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to examine the facts in light of specific High Court judgments and the Supreme Court judgment, considering the source of funds and the applicable cooperative law.
The Tribunal found the DRP's order to be cryptic and non-speaking, failing to fully adjudicate the assessee's objections. The issues related to the addition of control premium, risk premium, and terminal risk adjustment were not properly considered.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound to furnish the reasons for reassessment. Since the AO failed to provide these reasons to the assessees, the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not examine the assessee's claims on merits due to the ex-parte nature of the assessment and the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal, citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound to furnish the reasons for reassessment. Since the AO failed to provide these reasons to the assessees, the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not examined the relevant details for the year under consideration, even though the same plot was allowed for deduction in the succeeding year. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for examination of the relevant details.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance out of interest expenditure was warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments. However, a nominal disallowance of Rs. 10,000 was made for administrative expenses related to investment activities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the revenue would not suffer any loss by providing an opportunity to the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice. However, this was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income-tax Department due to their non-appearance.
The Tribunal found a lack of clarity regarding the nature of the software license fees and their usage. It also noted the interconnectedness of software license fees and foreign exchange loss on computer purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound to furnish the reasons for reassessment. Since the AO failed to provide these reasons to the assessees, the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, and that excess application of income (deficit) can be carried forward and set off against future income.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the issue to the AO for verification and a speaking order, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound to furnish the reasons for reassessment. Since the AO failed to provide these reasons to the assessees, the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was bound to furnish the reasons for reassessment. Since the AO failed to provide these reasons to the assessees, the reassessment orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined whether the liability for probable development expenditure was ascertained and quantified on a reasonable basis, as directed in the first round. Therefore, the issue requires fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that orders imposing penalties under Chapter XXI, including Section 271FA, are appealable before the CIT(A) as per Section 246A(1)(q). The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and that the law aids the vigilant. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's voluntary disallowance under Section 14A exceeded the dividend income, no further disallowance was warranted. The AO's enhanced disallowance was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis and allowed the inclusion of telecommunication expenses for Section 10A deduction. Consequential interest grounds were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal directed that the addition made to work-in-progress in the current year be considered as opening balance in the next year. For labour charges, the addition was restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal directed that the addition made to work-in-progress in the current year be considered as opening balance in the next year. For labour charges, the addition was restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disallowing depreciation on financial leases, citing a Supreme Court judgment, and set aside the issue for fresh adjudication. For TP adjustments, the Tribunal found the methodology flawed and restored the matters to the AO/TPO for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the period of limitation as the orders under Section 200A were not served on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was due to wrong legal advice from their previous counsel. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to adjust the excise duty in the value of purchases, sales, and opening stock, not just closing stock.
The Tribunal restored the issue of provision for diminution in value of assets to the AO for fresh decision, directing to ascertain extinguishment of rights in shares. The Tribunal allowed the ground related to Section 14A, following the High Court and Supreme Court judgments, as the assessee had no exempt income.