Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee for not providing a proper explanation for their absence.
The Tribunal held that while the legal contention regarding the applicability of Section 234E before June 1, 2015, was valid, the appeals were not admitted by the CIT(A) due to delay and lack of condonation application. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter.
The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the assessee's object clause was very wide and encompassed various activities. Lacking sufficient material to interfere with the CIT(E)'s order, the Tribunal confirmed the categorization.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, finding that the assessee's own funds exceeded the peak investment amount and that deposits were used for business, not investments. The Tribunal confirmed this, citing the Reliance Industries judgment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow depreciation, following previous ITAT and High Court rulings on the matter. The assessee's appeal was dismissed based on these precedents.
The Tribunal held that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to allow set off of losses from exempt income against taxable income. The alternative claim for adhoc deduction of expenses against interest income was also rejected due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to prove that the recipient included the interest income in their returns. For the Rolls Royce car, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the lifetime tax as revenue expenditure, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for disallowing certain withdrawals from the peak credit calculation was not justified. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of peak credit workings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine based on the submission regarding the tax effect. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if the tax effect exceeded the threshold or fell under exceptions.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case. A cost of Rs. 2000 was imposed on the assessee for being delinquent.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if the issues fell under exceptions.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is an accretion to the compensation and forms part of the compensation itself. Therefore, it is eligible for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, similar to the principal compensation.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of claims regarding assets acquired from abroad. The assessee was given an opportunity to substantiate their claims with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the right to appeal should not be curtailed due to non-payment of admitted tax, especially when the assessee sought time to pay. The CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal noted the identical facts to the previous year where the CIT(A) had also dismissed the arguments due to lack of grounds. Following the precedent, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that capital gains must be computed after allowing deduction for the indexed cost of acquisition, even if not claimed in the original return. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision on this aspect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the TDS returns were non-est due to non-payment of the fee before filing was not valid in the eyes of law. This finding of the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on discrepancies in Form 26AS, as the assessee has no control over that data and has provided bona fide explanations. The Tribunal also found that the AO and CIT(A) had incorrectly applied the provisions of Section 40(b) regarding partner remuneration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 375 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a similar case with identical facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the TDS returns were non-est due to non-payment of the fee before filing was not valid in the eyes of law. This finding of the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to issue proper notice for a hearing date, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that several comparables selected by the TPO were functionally different and should be excluded. The Tribunal also found that the TPO's working capital adjustment lacked proper basis and restored this issue for fresh computation.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not adjudicated all issues in the right perspective. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the addition for AY 2013-14, partly allowed the appeal for AY 2014-15 by remanding a part of the addition for verification, and remanded the issue for AY 2015-16 back to the AO for fresh consideration. The additions for unexplained investments in construction were also set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the addition for AY 2013-14, partly allowed the appeal for AY 2014-15 by remanding a part of the addition for verification, and remanded the issue for AY 2015-16 back to the AO for fresh consideration. The additions for unexplained investments in construction were also set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to issue proper notice for a hearing date, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not adjudicated all issues in the right perspective. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of the learned DR and the letter for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the addition for AY 2013-14, partly allowed the appeal for AY 2014-15 by remanding a part of the addition for verification, and remanded the issue for AY 2015-16 back to the AO for fresh consideration. The additions for unexplained investments in construction were also set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on discrepancies between Form 26AS and the assessee's books of accounts. The assessee had provided explanations and reconciliation, and the Revenue authorities had not pointed out any defects in the books.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The circular is also applicable to pending cases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the software purchase cost of Rs. 6.24 lakhs when the assessee had already disallowed the entire Rs. 51.50 lakhs would amount to double disallowance. It also noted that depreciation is not subject to disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on LTC, as the issue was debatable and the bank acted on a bona fide belief. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on LTC, as the issue was debatable and the bank acted on a bona fide belief. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on LTC, as the issue was debatable and the bank acted on a bona fide belief. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on LTC, as the issue was debatable and the bank acted on a bona fide belief. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on LTC, as the issue was debatable and the bank acted on a bona fide belief. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no disallowance under Section 14A is required when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. The CIT(A)'s order was based on co-ordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that certain comparables (Infosys Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., and Tata Elxsi Ltd.) were not comparable to the assessee's software development services due to differences in scale, brand value, product development, or functional dissimilarity. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) order was passed without adequate opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on all aspects.
The Tribunal found that only one notice was issued by the CIT(A), which was insufficient. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the AO's assessment order did not clearly specify which donations were considered anonymous due to lack of verifiable addresses. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's old age and the need for an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was because the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte, and notices issued to the assessee were returned unserved with the remark 'addressee not known', despite notices from the Tribunal being served at the same address.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had filed income and expenditure for the year ended March 31, 2018, subsequent financial details were not available. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the entire matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to first decide the technical ground regarding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) before adjudicating on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Section 54 as the condition of completing construction within three years was not met. The Tribunal also directed that the long-term capital gain be computed as per Section 48, considering the cost of acquisition of the flat and the land component.
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved the source of Rs. 10 lakhs of the gift from his father's bank withdrawals. However, the source of the remaining Rs. 10 lakhs was not substantiated with documentary evidence.