Loading ITAT cases…
8 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 12AA(2) allows the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 for preceding assessment years if the assessment is pending and registration is granted. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case, the matter was set aside to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to properly examine the assessee's explanations and directed fishing and roving inquiries. The PCIT's satisfaction was not objectively justifiable based on material on record.
The Tribunal held that STBs, due to their architectural design and functioning, are similar to computers and thus eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to computers. However, they are not energy-saving devices, so the higher 80% rate is not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's pleas and documentary evidence regarding the property's vacancy and legal restrictions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's pleas and documentary evidence regarding the property's vacancy and legal restrictions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that STBs, due to their architectural design and functioning, are similar to computers and thus eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to computers. However, they are not energy-saving devices, so the higher 80% rate is not applicable.
The Tribunal held that STBs, due to their architectural design and functioning, are similar to computers and thus eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to computers. However, they are not energy-saving devices, so the higher 80% rate is not applicable.