Loading ITAT cases…
135 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not critically examined the assessee's explanations and the evidence provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to treat the appeals as filed against the original orders and decide them on merits after considering any request for condonation of delay.
The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reduce travelling expenses incurred in foreign currency from the total turnover and recalculate the deduction under Section 10AA. For other issues regarding total income and consequential interest, the assessee was directed to pursue their pending rectification petition.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables used for determining the arm's length price due to functional dissimilarity, turnover criteria, and margin fluctuations. The Assessing Officer was also directed to grant credit for TDS as per Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the CIT's orders were bad as the assessee's replies were not considered. For assessment year 2011-12, while the reply was considered, the CIT should have made further inquiries to ascertain prejudice to revenue. Consequently, all matters were restored to the CIT for fresh decisions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had passed the order before the assessee filed additional grounds of appeal before them. To ensure justice, the Tribunal restored these additional grounds to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the CIT's orders were bad as the assessee's replies were not considered. For assessment year 2011-12, while the reply was considered, the CIT should have made further inquiries to ascertain prejudice to revenue. Consequently, all matters were restored to the CIT for fresh decisions.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the CIT's orders were bad as the assessee's replies were not considered. For assessment year 2011-12, while the reply was considered, the CIT should have made further inquiries to ascertain prejudice to revenue. Consequently, all matters were restored to the CIT for fresh decisions.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the CIT's orders were bad as the assessee's replies were not considered. For assessment year 2011-12, while the reply was considered, the CIT should have made further inquiries to ascertain prejudice to revenue. Consequently, all matters were restored to the CIT for fresh decisions.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the CIT's orders were bad as the assessee's replies were not considered. For assessment year 2011-12, while the reply was considered, the CIT should have made further inquiries to ascertain prejudice to revenue. Consequently, all matters were restored to the CIT for fresh decisions.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, the CIT's orders were bad as the assessee's replies were not considered. For assessment year 2011-12, while the reply was considered, the CIT should have made further inquiries to ascertain prejudice to revenue. Consequently, all matters were restored to the CIT for fresh decisions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not specifically addressed the assessee's arguments regarding exceptions to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the disputed issues to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for a newly established trust, it is premature to expect proof of activities within a short period after incorporation. The denial of approval solely based on the absence of activities is not appropriate, especially when the objects are charitable and registered under Section 12A.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 26,115/- for donations, dismissed the appeal regarding credit card expenses and foreign/domestic travel disallowances, and confirmed the addition for the Rs. 10,00,000/- loan. However, the addition for the Rs. 5,00,000/- loan was set aside for further inquiry by the AO.
The Tribunal held that provisions written back should be considered part of the operating profit when determining the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). It also directed the TPO to recompute the ALP after considering this and to allow Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit as per DRP directions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee constructed six independent residential houses, each with separate entrances, kitchens, and electric meters. As per Section 54F, deduction is allowed only for one residential house. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction for only one house.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether interest income from surplus funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) requires fresh examination by the AO, considering specific judgments. The Tribunal also restored the issue of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) by the CIT(A) to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. This decision was applied to all six appeals, including one where there was no initial delay, for simultaneous adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. This decision was applied to all six appeals, including one where there was no initial delay, for simultaneous adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. This decision was applied to all six appeals, including one where there was no initial delay, for simultaneous adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding the explanation regarding the accountant's lack of knowledge to be a sufficient reason. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal considered the grounds of appeal concerning transfer pricing adjustments. The assessee argued that the TPO/AO erred in considering the arm's length price to be 'Nil' for certain intra-group payments and in selecting the CUP method over the TNMM.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. This decision was applied to all six appeals, including one where there was no initial delay, for simultaneous adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Souharda Sahakaris are a form of co-operative societies registered under state law and thus cannot be denied deduction solely on that basis. However, other conditions for the deduction were not examined, so the matter was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement for foreign travel is not exempt under Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee-bank failed to demonstrate a bona fide belief that such foreign travel expenses were exempt, and therefore, was liable for TDS.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision regarding the applicability of Section 2(15) after examining the facts related to the preservation of environment. The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision regarding the applicability of Section 2(15) after examining the facts related to the preservation of environment. The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. This decision was applied to all six appeals, including one where there was no initial delay, for simultaneous adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a Souharda Sahakari is a form of co-operative society and cannot be rejected on that basis. However, other conditions for allowing the deduction were not examined by the AO.
The Tribunal restored the donation issue to the AO for verification of its allowability under Section 35AC. The disallowance of club fees was upheld due to lack of evidence. The cessation of liability issue was restored to the AO for verification of subsequent transactions with creditors.
The Tribunal deleted the enhancement made by the CIT(A) as it was based on presumption and without proper opportunity. However, the addition made by the AO was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence against it.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The AO needs to verify the claim of Rs. 8,25,000/- received by cheque on land sale and re-examine the cash receipts from the father against sale agreements.
The CIT(A) directed the AO to rectify the quantum of addition but held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was debatable and thus outside the scope of rectification. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the issue of deduction was debatable.