Loading ITAT cases…
243 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments were vague and lacked a live link between the survey and the belief of escaped income. Consequently, the reopening was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments were vague and lacked a live link between the survey and the belief of escaped income. Consequently, the reopening was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments were vague and lacked a live link between the survey and the belief of escaped income. Consequently, the reopening was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal set aside the assessments and restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case and to provide copies of statements recorded during the search.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explicitly mention incriminating material, but the AO noted unexplained income. The CIT(A)'s order was based on statements recorded and business practices discovered during the search. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and to ensure natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explicitly mention incriminating material, but the AO noted unexplained income. The CIT(A)'s order was based on statements recorded and business practices discovered during the search. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and to ensure natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explicitly mention incriminating material, but the AO noted unexplained income. The CIT(A)'s order was based on statements recorded and business practices discovered during the search. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and to ensure natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explicitly mention incriminating material, but the AO noted unexplained income. The CIT(A)'s order was based on statements recorded and business practices discovered during the search. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and to ensure natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explicitly mention incriminating material, but the AO noted unexplained income. The CIT(A)'s order was based on statements recorded and business practices discovered during the search. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and to ensure natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the CIT(A) had followed the judicial discipline of adhering to a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the Revenue's request and granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explicitly mention incriminating material, but the AO noted unexplained income. The CIT(A)'s order was based on statements recorded and business practices discovered during the search. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and to ensure natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not explicitly mention incriminating material, but the AO noted unexplained income. The CIT(A)'s order was based on statements recorded and business practices discovered during the search. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation and to ensure natural justice, the assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the CIT(A) had followed the judicial discipline of adhering to a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that neither the TPO nor the DRP could identify a single uncontrolled comparable for benchmarking the R&D and management fees. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh consideration of the ALP under TNMM.
The tribunal held that an order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 264 of the Act is not an appealable order before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any expenditure in relation to any income, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A was unwarranted and deleted it.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective show cause notice. For the assessment years, the matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication regarding the lease rentals and the advance, considering the income offered in subsequent years.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective show cause notice. For the assessment years, the matter was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication regarding the lease rentals and the advance, considering the income offered in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed any expenditure or deduction in relation to any income, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A was unwarranted and deleted it.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the assessee's claims for movie purchases, programme production, amortization, and deferred revenue expenditure. For the Section 40(a)(ia) issue, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the claim in the year the tax was paid, especially since the assessee was not liable to deduct tax.
The Tribunal held that the cost of the two irreparable windmills should be added to the cost of the six operational windmills, as their spares were utilized. Depreciation should be allowed on the entire purchase cost of the 8 windmills, considering the period of usage.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of Rs. 59,55,802/- related to unexplained cash credits and remitted it to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the assessee's business model and potential sources from earlier years. However, the addition of Rs. 13,45,533/- towards unproved sundry creditors was dismissed as the assessee had agreed to this disallowance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the need to estimate profit due to lack of documentation, the Tribunal reduced the estimated profit from 8% to 5% of admitted sales, considering the nature and location of the business.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the need for profit estimation due to non-cooperation, it reduced the estimated profit from 8% to 5% of admitted sales, considering the nature and location of the business.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s computation of peak credit by adopting cumulative cash deposit was erroneous. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that 'other income' not directly derived from the industrial activity is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, but allowed estimation of expenses at 10% of such income. Disallowances under Section 14A were restored to the AO for re-adjudication. Mine closure expenses were also restored to the AO for verification regarding escrow accounts and subsequent taxability.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must independently satisfy himself about the escapement of income. Since the Assessing Officer initially concluded there was no escapement and later reopened without new material, the reopening was not justified.
The Tribunal held that 'other income' not directly derived from the industrial activity is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA, but allowed estimation of expenses at 10% of such income. Disallowances under Section 14A were restored to the AO for re-adjudication. Mine closure expenses were also restored to the AO for verification regarding escrow accounts and subsequent taxability.