Loading ITAT cases…
19 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that vocational training through ITIs falls within the scope of 'education' as per Section 2(15) of the Act. It also found that fund transfers to a separately registered franchise for similar activities were justified. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter for examination of financial statements and fund application.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee was entitled to set off current year losses against deemed income, as per CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2019. The Revenue's ground regarding deletion of addition for alleged unaccounted sales was dismissed as the CIT(A) found it covered by income already declared.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including restricting disallowances under Section 14A based on previous years' precedents and the nature of investments. It also addressed the classification of interest income and the treatment of expenses like line/bay charges and subsidies.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including restricting disallowances under Section 14A based on previous years' precedents and the nature of investments. It also addressed the classification of interest income and the treatment of expenses like line/bay charges and subsidies.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including restricting disallowances under Section 14A based on previous years' precedents and the nature of investments. It also addressed the classification of interest income and the treatment of expenses like line/bay charges and subsidies.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to furnish evidence for prior period expenses and foreign exchange fluctuation due to the fire. It also directed that R&D expenses be treated as capital in nature, allowing depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal due to low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The dismissal was not an affirmation of the lower authority's order on merits, and the legal issue was left open.
The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including restricting disallowances under Section 14A based on previous years' precedents and the nature of investments. It also addressed the classification of interest income and the treatment of expenses like line/bay charges and subsidies.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to furnish evidence for prior period expenses and foreign exchange fluctuation due to the fire. It also directed that R&D expenses be treated as capital in nature, allowing depreciation.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including restricting disallowances under Section 14A based on previous years' precedents and the nature of investments. It also addressed the classification of interest income and the treatment of expenses like line/bay charges and subsidies.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee availing the immunity scheme under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the issuance of a certificate by the Principal CIT.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act had been issued. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee possesses sufficient own interest-free funds to meet such advances, then it is presumed that the advances were made out of own funds, and no disallowance is warranted. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the documents produced by the assessee were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Both parties agreed that the documents required deeper scrutiny.