Loading ITAT cases…
143 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice as it was unclear if proper hearing notices were served and the assessee was not show-caused. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee offered income from contract receipts on a percentage of completion method. Therefore, the AO was not justified in disallowing the entire TDS credit, and the CIT(A) rightly allowed credit for income offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that the amounts related to invoices raised by the assessee for the period 2001-2007 and, as the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and the relevant years were not open for assessment, offering the income in AY 2011-12 was correct. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the extent of dividend income earned, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not examined the terms of the sub-contract, the scope of work, or the process of work completion and quantification. Therefore, the issue of revenue recognition and application of accounting standards needed fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that making a statutory claim after furnishing all factual details does not amount to concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the financial statements and ledgers were not additional evidence as they were available to the Assessing Officer before reopening. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) did not violate Rule 46A(3). The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition on merit.
The Tribunal held that the financial statements and ledgers were not additional evidence as they were available to the Assessing Officer before reopening. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) did not violate Rule 46A(3). The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition on merit.
The Tribunal held that under Rule 46A(4) of the Income Tax Rules, the CIT(A) has the power to direct the production of documents or examination of witnesses to dispose of an appeal, and this power overrides the restrictions in other sub-rules. Therefore, it is not necessary to confront the Assessing Officer with additional material when the CIT(A) exercises this power.
The Tribunal held that the RBI approval only acknowledged the receipt of declaration and did not establish the creditworthiness of the foreign investor. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure as the business had not commenced. However, it deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, following the Madras High Court's ruling that no disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure as the business had not commenced. However, it deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, following the Madras High Court's ruling that no disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 54 of the Act for the entire investment made against the sale consideration towards the transfer of property. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal restored the issue of employee incentives to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the expenditure was incurred during the relevant assessment year. If verified as current year expenditure, it is liable to be allowed.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient verification of the expenses claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted income earned by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) order was confirmed based on High Court and Tribunal precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an adequate opportunity to present their valuation report or have the property valued by the DVO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving undisclosed income. Statements made to third parties like banks cannot be the sole basis for an addition without corroborating material.
The Tribunal restored the issue of employee incentives to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the expenditure was incurred during the relevant assessment year. If verified as current year expenditure, it is liable to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that merely because the assessee could not provide detailed particulars of the donors, it does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the entire receipts were disclosed and exemption under Section 11 was claimed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the Department. Therefore, the Revenue cannot proceed with the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were a colorable device to obtain bogus capital gains, citing the company's identification as a penny stock by the BSE and lack of independent investigation by the AO. The Tribunal relied on various Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future examination.
The Tribunal held that Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act was applicable, deeming only 10% of the aggregate amount as profit chargeable to tax. Therefore, TDS was only liable on this 10%.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee itself described the land as 'residential property' in the sale deed, it could not subsequently claim it as agricultural land for income tax purposes. The presence of coconut trees and the business of real estate did not alter this fact.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal electronically, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside and the matter was remitted back for consideration on merits.
The Tribunal found that details regarding the dates of investment and availability of own funds were not on record. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that appeals arising from the same assessment, including those from rectification proceedings, should be heard by the same appellate authority to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the Section 10B deduction as the issue was already decided against the assessee by the Tribunal and the conditions for deduction were not met. Furthermore, there were no positive profits before adjustments to be eligible for such deductions.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed re-examination by the Assessing Officer as the investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the investigation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and the basis for disallowance was not sufficiently established. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the necessary report was not filed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue.
The Tribunal found that the necessary report was not filed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue.
The Tribunal found that the necessary report was not filed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue.
The Tribunal found that the necessary report was not filed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue.
The Tribunal found that the necessary report was not filed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the issue.