Loading ITAT cases…
56 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the method of disallowance used by the CIT(A) was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-calculate the disallowance based on the method adopted in a previous ITAT case, considering the mixed nature of funds. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. Since the additions for unexplained cash deposits and loans were not based on such material, they were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition by following a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. Since the loans were given in earlier years and the issue was decided in favor of the assessee, the Department's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in cases of completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is unearthed during the search. In the absence of such material, the AO has no jurisdiction to make additions.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing due opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal, following a High Court remand, held that PIDB acted as a grantor of the concession on its own account and was liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C(1C). Consequently, PIDB was liable for interest and penalty.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The AO had accepted the principal investment amount from the same investors.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's plea regarding sufficient own funds, as the financial statements were already on record and the argument was a legal one. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share capital received. The mere filing of confirmations and documents proving existence was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the method of disallowance used by the CIT(A) was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-calculate the disallowance based on the method adopted in a previous ITAT case, considering the mixed nature of funds. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
The ITAT held that employee contributions to PF deposited before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as deduction, even if deposited late as per the PF Act. The tribunal also held that losses incurred on account of advances to deceased employees, which were required to be waived off as per a government notification, were allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not recorded the necessary satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim for expenses. Furthermore, the assessee had sufficient own funds to make the investments, making the disallowance unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the method of disallowance used by the CIT(A) was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-calculate the disallowance based on the method adopted in a previous ITAT case, considering the mixed nature of funds. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the method of disallowance used by the CIT(A) was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-calculate the disallowance based on the method adopted in a previous ITAT case, considering the mixed nature of funds. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that in cases of completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is unearthed during the search. In the absence of such material, the AO has no jurisdiction to make additions.
The Tribunal, following a High Court remand, held that PIDB acted as a grantor of the concession on its own account and was liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C(1C). Consequently, PIDB was liable for interest and penalty.
The Tribunal, following a High Court remand, held that PIDB acted as a grantor of the concession on its own account and was liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C(1C). Consequently, PIDB was liable for interest and penalty.
The Tribunal, following a High Court remand, held that PIDB acted as a grantor of the concession on its own account and was liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C(1C). Consequently, PIDB was liable for interest and penalty.
The Tribunal, following a High Court remand, held that PIDB acted as a grantor of the concession on its own account and was liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C(1C). Consequently, PIDB was liable for interest and penalty.
The Tribunal, following a High Court remand, held that PIDB acted as a grantor of the concession on its own account and was liable to collect tax at source under Section 206C(1C). Consequently, PIDB was liable for interest and penalty.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses are to be treated as incurred for the purpose of business. It further held that Explanation 2 to Section 37 of the Act is prospective and not retrospective in its application.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing due opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition for the car purchase. However, regarding the interest income deduction, the tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses are to be treated as incurred for the purpose of business. It further held that Explanation 2 to Section 37 of the Act is prospective and not retrospective in its application.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses are to be treated as incurred for the purpose of business. It further held that Explanation 2 to Section 37 of the Act is prospective and not retrospective in its application.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition as no excise duty was paid on closing work in progress, and even if included, it would not result in a difference.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition as no excise duty was paid on closing work in progress, and even if included, it would not result in a difference.
The Tribunal held that while the assessees could not substantiate the source of income with evidence, the Assessing Officer also failed to disprove the explanation provided. Since the assessees declared the income and paid taxes, and the explanation was not found to be false, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessees could not substantiate the source of income with evidence, the Assessing Officer also failed to disprove the explanation provided. Since the assessees declared the income and paid taxes, and the explanation was not found to be false, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that justice would be served by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter to the Pr. CIT for a fresh decision. The Revenue was directed to re-decide the issue after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that while the assessees could not substantiate the source of income with evidence, the Assessing Officer also failed to disprove the explanation provided. Since the assessees declared the income and paid taxes, and the explanation was not found to be false, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessees could not substantiate the source of income with evidence, the Assessing Officer also failed to disprove the explanation provided. Since the assessees declared the income and paid taxes, and the explanation was not found to be false, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessees could not substantiate the source of income with evidence, the Assessing Officer also failed to disprove the explanation provided. Since the assessees declared the income and paid taxes, and the explanation was not found to be false, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessees could not substantiate the source of income with evidence, the Assessing Officer also failed to disprove the explanation provided. Since the assessees declared the income and paid taxes, and the explanation was not found to be false, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal found that the procedure followed by the CIT(A) was not in line with the statutory mandate. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that while the assessees could not substantiate the source of income with evidence, the Assessing Officer also failed to disprove the explanation provided. Since the assessees declared the income and paid taxes, and the explanation was not found to be false, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that justice would be served by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter to the Pr. CIT for a fresh decision. The Revenue was directed to re-decide the issue after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that justice would be served by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter to the Pr. CIT for a fresh decision. The Revenue was directed to re-decide the issue after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding reassessment proceedings as it was not agitated before the CIT(A). The tribunal noted that the assessee's claim that the land was not a capital asset under Section 2(14) was not properly substantiated with evidence regarding its location and notified limits.
The Tribunal held that the year of substantial expansion becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to a fresh 100% deduction for the remaining period of the total 10 years. This decision was based on a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the year of substantial expansion becomes the initial assessment year, entitling the assessee to a fresh 100% deduction for the remaining period of the total 10 years. This decision was based on a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.
Following a decision in a sister concern's case, the Tribunal restored the issue of whether interest reimbursement under the TUF Scheme is a capital receipt back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence and that the issue should be adjudicated afresh. The Tribunal noted that a similar advance received by the assessee's husband was accepted by the Department.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was compensation for retrenchment and loss of job, constituting a capital receipt. Therefore, no part of the amount received was taxable.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was compensation for retrenchment and loss of job, constituting a capital receipt. Therefore, no part of the amount received was taxable.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was compensation for retrenchment and loss of job, constituting a capital receipt. Therefore, no part of the amount received was taxable.
Following a decision in a sister concern's case, the Tribunal restored the issue of whether interest reimbursement under the TUF Scheme is a capital receipt back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Following a decision in a sister concern's case, the Tribunal restored the issue of whether interest reimbursement under the TUF Scheme is a capital receipt back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.