Loading ITAT cases…
78 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. As the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the Revenue to seek recall of dismissal for cases inadvertently included or falling under exceptions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates not filing or pressing appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, considering the electronically filed appeal and granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. This was because the quantum addition itself had been deleted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mst.Katiji. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2007-08, holding that 'Digital Content' is a copyrighted material and an intangible asset eligible for depreciation at 25%, not 60%. For AY 2009-10, the appeal was partly allowed, with the matter of Section 14A disallowance being remanded to the AO for verification regarding investments yielding taxable dividend income or no dividend income.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the AO for de novo assessment. The Tribunal found that a detailed verification and enquiry were necessary regarding the classification of the land, its jurisdiction within CMDA during the relevant period, whether agricultural activities were conducted, and if it qualified as a capital asset under Section 2(14) or as agricultural land for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed exemption, thus bearing the onus to prove it fell within the exemption provisions. The Tribunal considered the Hon'ble Madras High Court's observation that land within CMDA jurisdiction is non-agricultural unless proven otherwise, and the assessee's minimal agricultural income and Tahsildar's report suggesting limited agricultural activities. The Tribunal held that all contentions, both jurisdictional/legal and on merits, were kept open for the assessee to raise before the AO during the de novo assessment. The AO was directed to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and provide an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2007-08, holding that 'Digital Content' is a copyrighted material and an intangible asset eligible for depreciation at 25%, not 60%. For AY 2009-10, the appeal was partly allowed, with the matter of Section 14A disallowance being remanded to the AO for verification regarding investments yielding taxable dividend income or no dividend income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessment order, being consequential to the quashed revision order, had no basis. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as they could not provide any contrary judgment.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.