Loading ITAT cases…
31 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity to defend their case, specifically the opportunity to cross-examine the manager of the cooperative society whose statement was relied upon. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to lack of requisite jurisdiction. It also found that the authorities below erred in denying the claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's finding that the AO failed to verify facts was not controverted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's orders, finding no infirmity. In one case, the consequential assessment order did not change the income, rendering that appeal academic.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's finding that the AO failed to verify facts was not controverted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's orders, finding no infirmity. In one case, the consequential assessment order did not change the income, rendering that appeal academic.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's finding that the AO failed to verify facts was not controverted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's orders, finding no infirmity. In one case, the consequential assessment order did not change the income, rendering that appeal academic.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's finding that the AO failed to verify facts was not controverted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's orders, finding no infirmity. In one case, the consequential assessment order did not change the income, rendering that appeal academic.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15 due to low tax effect. For AYs 2011-12 and 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of interest accrued on non-performing assets.
The Tribunal noted that despite a defect memo being issued, the assessee failed to remove the pointed-out defects. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as unadmitted and defective.
The Tribunal noted that despite a defect memo being issued, the assessee failed to remove the pointed-out defects. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as unadmitted and defective.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to lack of requisite jurisdiction. It also found that the authorities below erred in denying the claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) without proper appreciation of facts and law.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to lack of requisite jurisdiction. It also found that the authorities below erred in denying the claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding the monetary limit for appeals applies retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the additions made on estimated basis for suppressed fees were not sustainable. The assessee had provided disproving evidence like confirmation letters, which the AO failed to rebut, leading to the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's arguments regarding the nature of freight charges and the CA certificate for a portion of the freight forwarding expenses. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that directing the AO to take rectificatory action after verification amounts to setting aside the matter to the AO, which is beyond the powers of the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to examine lease agreements and compare them with a Supreme Court judgment. Similarly, the transfer pricing issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the arguments and independently determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the DRP's order was cryptic and lacked proper consideration of legal provisions and arguments. The matter was restored to the DRP for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to Nuclear Fuel Complex, a government party, considering the purchase orders and bank statements as sufficient evidence. For other parties, the Tribunal deleted the additions as the AO had no adverse material beyond the lack of reply from the creditors.
The Tribunal restored the issue of share premium to the AO for fresh decision, following the Bombay High Court's judgment. For the enhancement issue, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision on whether to make an addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS as it paid harvesting charges on behalf of the farmers and these payments were adjusted against the sugarcane purchase price. Therefore, the harvesting charges did not constitute the assessee's own expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO was invalid. It relied on the Karnataka High Court judgment in CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar, stating that completion of construction within three years is not a mandatory requirement for exemption. The Tribunal also noted that investment in more than one residential unit was permissible for AY 2013-14 and that depositing funds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is not required when the investment is directly made in a residential house.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no stay or reversal of the Karnataka High Court judgment relied upon for interest income. For the expenses issue, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the disallowed amount was the only expense related to a scheme for which grant was received.
The Tribunal held that the contribution to Hampi Utsav, which helps in promoting local culture and heritage and fosters goodwill with local citizens, bureaucrats, and politicians, is an expenditure that benefits the assessee's business. Therefore, it is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the DRP's directions rendered the assessment order illegal. However, it directed the AO to rectify the mistake regarding belated PF/ESI payments and restore issues of interest and TDS/TCS credit to the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15 due to low tax effect. For AYs 2011-12 and 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made on account of interest accrued on non-performing assets.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's finding that the AO failed to verify facts was not controverted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's orders, finding no infirmity. In one case, the consequential assessment order did not change the income, rendering that appeal academic.
The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in segregating maintenance services from the software distribution activity. It agreed with the assessee that these services are inter-linked and that the 40% payment to the AE was consistent with prior and subsequent years' accepted transfer pricing methods.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to the exclusion of comparables and working capital adjustment, remanding the issue of brought forward losses for verification. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of certain comparables and set aside another for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that stamp duty paid on lease deed renewal is a revenue expenditure and directed the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 80-IB(8A) considering the disallowances. It also directed the AO to verify the provision for expenses and grant the claim if eligible, and to verify the TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full deduction under Section 54, following the Karnataka High Court's decision that the entire consideration flowing from the assessee is sufficient, even if the property is jointly purchased.