Loading ITAT cases…
263 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's entitlement to Section 10B deduction, following previous decisions. The assessee's claim for enhanced Section 10B deduction was restored to the AO for reconsideration, while the claim for Section 80JJAA deduction was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's entitlement to Section 10B deduction, following previous decisions. The assessee's claim for enhanced Section 10B deduction was restored to the AO for consideration, while the claim for Section 80JJAA deduction was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of software expenses was covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case and restored it to the AO for fresh consideration. Regarding data link charges and other expenditure, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F was not allowable. However, it refrained from commenting on the issue of allowing the cost of acquisition and improvement for computing capital gains, as a separate appeal was pending on that consequential order.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it fell below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the rival contentions regarding the delay and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders. The assessee argued that the CIT(A)'s orders were bad in law due to violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that even in cases of non-appearance by the appellant, the appeal should be decided on merit. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice was a procedural irregularity, not fatal to the assessment. However, it was curable.
The Tribunal held that the Guidance Note on real estate transactions is recommendatory and not applicable as the conditions specified were not met. The assessee's method of offering income on completion of sale was accepted as it reflects the transfer of risk and liabilities.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. A cost was imposed on the assessee for not appearing before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the addition for unexplained stock, finding it unsustainable as the assessee opted for presumptive taxation and declared a higher stock value with the revenue. The additions for unexplained investments were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the disallowance of repairs and maintenance and community development expenses to the AO for fresh examination. It also restored the passenger service fee loss claim to the AO. However, it allowed the deduction for interest paid on delayed deposit of service tax and VAT.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the lower authorities' orders, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Income Tax Department.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's explanation. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving the original assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to payment of costs by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, as the assessee claimed ignorance of the deposits and the provided bank account did not reflect such amounts. The AO was directed to provide details of the deposits to the assessee for her explanation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 91 lakhs to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication, directing a remand report from the AO due to the assessee filing additional evidence in appeal without allowing AO verification. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on the second issue, restricting the addition to Rs. 10 lakhs.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored all issues to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice to allow the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a plausible explanation for the delay, believing it was not mandatory to file returns due to its income being below the taxable threshold and covered by exemptions. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a plausible explanation for the delay, believing it was not mandatory to file returns due to its income being below the taxable threshold and covered by exemptions. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as the statements and reports relied upon by the AO were not provided. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was noted that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year, and therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed under Section 154. However, since the CIT(A) had subsequently decided the matter on merits in separate proceedings for the same assessment year, the present appeal before the Tribunal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the allowability of expenses. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file for a decision on this specific issue.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence provided by the assessee, which included government proceedings mandating the deduction towards the Contractors' Beneficiary Fund. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a plausible explanation for the delay, believing it was not mandatory to file returns due to its income being below the taxable threshold and covered by exemptions. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in enhancing the addition to Rs. 83.33 lakhs without providing the basis. The addition of Rs. 50.00 lakhs, offered by the assessee, was sustained as it was within the assessee's knowledge.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was void-ab-initio as the seized material was not incriminating. Therefore, the assessment orders were rightly cancelled by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that the assessee appeared not interested in pursuing the appeal. Applying the principle that law aids the vigilant, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation, admitted the claim for deduction u/s 80P as a new claim, and restored it to the AO for examination. The appeal against the rectification order was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order under challenge had been set aside by the Ld. Commissioner, the present appeal had become infructuous and could not survive.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case afresh in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that capital gains on the sale of leasehold land should be treated as long-term capital gains, while gains on the sale of the building should be treated as short-term capital gains under Section 50. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claim for set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-appearance as the hearing notice was received after the ex-parte order was passed. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's claim for relief under Section 90/91, as the Goetze decision does not prevent appellate authorities from entertaining fresh claims that are part of the record and material for correct tax assessment. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with the basis of his suspicions or allowing for cross-examination. Following a Karnataka High Court judgment, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing as they were not provided with the investigation report or an opportunity for cross-examination. Following the Karnataka High Court's judgment, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Chandra Devi Kothari, held that the assessee was denied a fair hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the necessary details and an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred in foreign currency, when excluded from export turnover for Section 10A calculation, must also be excluded from total turnover. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the allowability of employees' contribution to PF paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred in foreign currency, when excluded from export turnover for Section 10A calculation, must also be excluded from total turnover. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the allowability of employees' contribution to PF paid before the due date of filing the return.