Loading ITAT cases…
61 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the existence of the business loss and its eligibility for set off against the income of AY 2009-10, providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that forex derivative transactions for hedging business risk are not speculative, provided they do not exceed the export turnover. For unexplained cash capital, the issue was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that forex derivative transactions for hedging business risk are not speculative, provided they do not exceed the export turnover. For unexplained cash capital, the issue was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Turbine Division was a distinct and independent industrial undertaking, not formed by splitting or reconstruction of the existing business. It was established with separate premises, technology, and funding, and its primary product was power, not just steam for the paper unit.
The Tribunal noted that the balance sheet was not initially filed with the return. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions when the payee is not identified and the amount payable is not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails in such circumstances, as indicated by the requirements of Form 16A.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a responsibility to dispose of appeals on merit, especially given the power to enhance assessment, and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) should call for records and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that TDS is not required on provisions for site restoration expenses and year-end provisions when the payee and the amount payable are not ascertainable. The machinery for TDS fails if the deductee and the amount cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that the DRP had not given definitive findings and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue concerning managerial services in light of the relevant DTAA. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not independently arrived at satisfaction that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no incorrect assumption of facts or application of law by the Assessing Officer, and that the Commissioner could not substitute his own estimate.
The Tribunal held that the DRP had not given definitive findings and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue concerning managerial services in light of the relevant DTAA. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory duty to dispose of appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed co-ordinate bench decisions. The Assessing Officer's argument that the assessee is not a cooperative society was considered misconceived as it was not an issue raised before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory duty to dispose of appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory duty to dispose of appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory duty to dispose of appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not independently arrived at satisfaction that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no incorrect assumption of facts or application of law by the Assessing Officer, and that the Commissioner could not substitute his own estimate.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not independently arrived at satisfaction that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no incorrect assumption of facts or application of law by the Assessing Officer, and that the Commissioner could not substitute his own estimate.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not independently arrived at satisfaction that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no incorrect assumption of facts or application of law by the Assessing Officer, and that the Commissioner could not substitute his own estimate.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not independently arrived at satisfaction that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no incorrect assumption of facts or application of law by the Assessing Officer, and that the Commissioner could not substitute his own estimate.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had not independently arrived at satisfaction that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found no incorrect assumption of facts or application of law by the Assessing Officer, and that the Commissioner could not substitute his own estimate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) is a statutory authority with judicial power and is expected to dispose of appeals on merit after calling for records. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution is not permissible, and an assessee should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was precluded due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as non-admitted.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot shift responsibility to the Chartered Accountant for non-disclosure and that the surrender of income was not voluntary. For the 2007-08 assessment year, the issue of bank credits was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration as the ex-husband's position was unclear.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot shift responsibility to the Chartered Accountant for non-disclosure and that the surrender of income was not voluntary. For the 2007-08 assessment year, the issue of bank credits was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration as the ex-husband's position was unclear.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot shift responsibility to the Chartered Accountant for non-disclosure and that the surrender of income was not voluntary. For the 2007-08 assessment year, the issue of bank credits was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration as the ex-husband's position was unclear.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 147 after an assessment under Section 153C is permissible if there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. However, it ruled that entire unaccounted gross receipts cannot be treated as income, and only the gross profit should be considered.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 147 after an assessment under Section 153C is permissible if there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. However, it ruled that entire unaccounted gross receipts cannot be treated as income, and only the gross profit should be considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot shift responsibility to the Chartered Accountant for non-disclosure and that the surrender of income was not voluntary. For the 2007-08 assessment year, the issue of bank credits was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration as the ex-husband's position was unclear.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 147 after an assessment under Section 153C is permissible if there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. However, it ruled that entire unaccounted gross receipts cannot be treated as income, and only the gross profit should be considered.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal deleted penalties related to agricultural income treated as income from other sources, as it was based on estimation. Penalties for deemed dividends were confirmed due to lack of explanation, and some appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without first identifying and communicating any defects to the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) is expected to decide the appeal on its merits after giving a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(Appeals) should have disposed of the appeal on merit rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution.