Loading ITAT cases…
186 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the appeal could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakhs, is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal cannot be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that the investigation report, which formed the basis for classifying the company as a penny stock, was not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer after providing the report and allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a copy of the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report and details of inquiries. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the necessary documents and an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a perpetual lease agreement for an unlimited period, which grants enduring rights of possession and enjoyment, should be construed as a purchase of property for claiming exemption under Section 54F. The Tribunal found that such a transaction falls within the definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(vi) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding qualification for deduction under Section 115VD needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer, similar to previous years. For Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding qualification for deduction under Section 115VD needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer, similar to previous years. For Section 14A, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer was not furnished to the assessee, and the assessee's involvement in penny stock manipulation was not established. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, allowing depreciation at 15% on office equipment. The items were considered part of the computer network and eligible for the higher depreciation rate.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, allowing depreciation at 15% on office equipment. The items were considered part of the computer network and eligible for the higher depreciation rate.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. It held that office equipment, including UPS batteries, air conditioners, and telephone systems, qualifies for depreciation at 15% as plant and machinery.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) has a statutory obligation to consider the grounds of appeal on merit, irrespective of the assessee's appearance. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without merit consideration is against the scheme of the Income-tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the change in the method of valuation of closing stock was bona fide and that the opening stock should not be revalued using the new method. The High Court's decision was followed, which allowed the change in method without altering the opening stock valuation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the change in the method of valuation of closing stock was bona fide and that the opening stock should not be revalued using the new method. The High Court's decision was followed, which allowed the change in method without altering the opening stock valuation.
The Tribunal held that receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital receipts, following coordinate bench decisions. Expenses related to the sale of carbon credits cannot be treated as revenue expenditure but should be reduced from capital receipts.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs, provided no exceptions apply.
The Tribunal held that only expenditure relatable to earning of income admitted by the assessee should be disallowed while computing book profits under section 115JB. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order following the decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 345 days, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, especially for a senior citizen with health issues. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were sham and designed to convert unaccounted cash into accounted money through bogus contract notes. The assessee failed to explain the true nature of the transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be reasonable and sufficient. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits and had not applied his mind to the material on record. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.
The tribunal held that non-compete fees paid by the assessee should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure, allowing a deduction over 10 years. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant additional depreciation on plant and machinery installed in the second half of the financial year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals as they were not filed against a proper order. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file fresh appeals with appropriate orders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals as they were not filed against a proper order. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file fresh appeals with appropriate orders.
The Tribunal held that the sale of closing stock was impliedly made to the purchaser, as evidenced by the purchaser's confirmation and their books of accounts. The assessee's contention of a slump sale without specific consideration for stock was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient cause, as the misplacement of papers was beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also decided that the appeals should be heard on merit, as technicalities should not prevent consideration of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) citing sufficient cause, as the misplacement of papers was beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also decided that the appeals should be heard on merit, as technicalities should not prevent consideration of the case.
The Tribunal held that the sale of closing stock was impliedly made to the purchaser, as evidenced by the purchaser's confirmation and their books of accounts. The assessee's contention of a slump sale without specific consideration for stock was rejected.
The Tribunal held that cash payments made to lorry drivers for freight charges were due to commercial expediency and business necessity. The disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following its own precedent for a similar issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for business purposes should be allowed as a deduction, irrespective of whether income was earned from the investment.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 39,70,832. The Revenue failed to point out any error in the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals as they were not filed against a proper order. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file fresh appeals with appropriate orders.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessees an adequate opportunity to substantiate their claims and to consider relevant case law.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent e-filing relates back to the original manual filing date, meaning there was no delay. The CIT(Appeals) should have considered the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed manually within the limitation period, and the subsequent electronic filing cured the procedural defect. The CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal without considering its merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal in limine without considering its merits. The right of appeal is substantive, and procedural defects should not hinder justice if they can be rectified.