Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee has opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant criterion for selecting comparable companies in transfer pricing analysis. Consequently, five companies with significantly higher turnovers than the assessee were excluded from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for AY 2011-12. The key factor was the existence of approval for the R&D facility, not necessarily the date of approval itself.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a daily cash summary and held that the peak credit theory should be applied to determine unexplained cash deposits. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to examine the detailed activities and supporting documents submitted by the assessee. The CIT(Exemptions) also did not verify compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 80G(5).
The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the contribution to the SPV, being a guarantee payment for resuming mining operations and implementing R&R plans as directed by the Supreme Court, is an expenditure incurred for carrying out business activity. It is not a penalty or an application of income after it has reached the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have adjudicated the grounds on merits, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Goetze (India) Ltd. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E, exercised under Section 200A, for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not permissible as the amendment to Section 200A was prospective. Therefore, no computation or intimation for such fees could be made for assessment years before June 1, 2015.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal have been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate from 10% to 8% of the gross turnover. It also remitted the issue of additions under sections 69C and 68 back to the AO for the assessee to establish the nexus between credit card withdrawals and business purposes.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate from 10% to 8% of the gross turnover. It also remitted the issue of additions under sections 69C and 68 back to the AO for the assessee to establish the nexus between credit card withdrawals and business purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenditure was justified as the assessee could not establish commercial expediency for investments without earning interest. However, it ruled that disallowance of advertisement expenses on an estimated basis was not justified as the expenses were genuine and incurred as per business strategy. The Tribunal also held that business promotion expenses were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the same amount of Rs. 87.98 lakhs was added twice by the AO, once in the original assessment and again in the re-assessment, which is impermissible. Therefore, the disallowance made in the re-assessment order was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest under Sections 234B and 234C cannot be charged on tax liability arising from retrospective amendments, as the assessee cannot be considered a defaulter for not paying advance tax on provisions not existing at the time.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years was bad in law as there was no fresh material and it amounted to a change of opinion. The original assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputed issues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. As there was no objection from the revenue, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate from 10% to 8% of the gross turnover. It also remitted the issue of additions under sections 69C and 68 back to the AO for the assessee to establish the nexus between credit card withdrawals and business purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if circumstances warranted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenditure was justified as the assessee could not establish commercial expediency for investments without earning interest. However, it ruled that disallowance of advertisement expenses on an estimated basis was not justified as the expenses were genuine and incurred as per business strategy. The Tribunal also held that business promotion expenses were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(iib) is not applicable as the payment was not an exclusive levy or appropriation from a State Government undertaking. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that only investments yielding dividend income should be considered for calculating average investments.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies under Section 2(19) of the IT Act. Therefore, the denial of deduction solely on this ground was incorrect.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to provide necessary details regarding its membership and income from non-members. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not cooperated in providing crucial information to the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that income derived from activities beyond selling plants grown in its own nursery, such as landscaping and maintenance services at client sites, does not qualify as agricultural income. The primary and secondary operations must be conducted on the assessee's land to be considered agricultural.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(iib) is not applicable as the payment was not an exclusive levy or appropriation from a State Government undertaking. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that only investments yielding dividend income should be considered for calculating average investments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) correctly directed the exclusion of 90% of net interest income and certain miscellaneous incomes from the business profits for Section 80HHC computation. However, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow R&D expenditure and the assessee's accounting method for packing materials.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee is opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee is moving to withdraw it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeals due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.