Loading ITAT cases…
76 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department below the enhanced monetary limit were not maintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the issues back to the file of the AO, directing him to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was cautioned against abusing the trust reposed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also noted that the assessment and appeal orders were passed ex-parte, and the original assessee had expired before the appeal order was passed. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and lacked proper discussion of the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to verify if the assessee had claimed expenditure on capital assets as application of income in earlier years when exemption was granted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it consistent with previous rulings and the established norm of allowing a 15% variation in electricity consumption. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Aarham Softronics, substantial expansion qualifies as an 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to 100% deduction for five years from that year, subject to a total period of 10 years.
The Tribunal held that an assessee cannot claim 100% deduction for the entire ten-year period under Section 80-IC. After the initial five years of 100% deduction, the deduction for the next five years is restricted to 25% (or 30% for companies).
The Tribunal held that an assessee cannot claim 100% deduction for the entire ten-year period under Section 80-IC. After the initial five years of 100% deduction, the deduction for the subsequent five years is restricted to 25% (or 30% for companies).
The Tribunal held that Explanation 4 to Section 271 of the Act, as amended, applies even when the concealed income reduces a declared loss. Therefore, penalty can be levied on the amount that reduces the loss.
The Tribunal held that the vocational training provided by the appellant society, being systematic, regulated by government bodies, and aimed at employment generation, falls within the definition of 'education' under Section 2(15). The Tribunal also found that the reimbursement from the government for educational activities is not commercial and that the use of cars for society's activities and corpus fund receipts are not grounds for rejection.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case facts were identical to the jurisdictional High Court's decision, which mandated TDS deduction. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue had not brought forth evidence to prove the transaction was not genuine. It further stated that if the cash deposits in the loan party's account are unexplained, the addition should be made in the hands of the loan party, not the loan recipient, especially when the loan party is an income tax assessee.