Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature of receipts, especially donations, was not correct. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature of receipts, especially donations, was not correct. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature of receipts, especially donations, was not correct. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can only be made if exempt income is earned. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to actively pursue the appeal and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to place relevant material and actively pursue the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made on account of belated remittance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is to be deleted. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's balance sheet for sufficient own funds. The ad-hoc disallowance was deleted as it was made on an estimated basis without disputing the nature of expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the losses booked in compliance with mandatory accounting standard AS-11 are notional and not allowable. The Tribunal followed a previous decision of the Delhi Bench, stating that the addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the orders of the authorities below were cryptic and lacked detailed findings. It noted that while the assessee followed mercantile accounting and relied on Supreme Court judgments, the parameters for allowability were not clearly established.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly appreciated the assessee's submission regarding sufficient own funds. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to examine the balance sheet and ascertain if the investments were made from own funds.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal could not be proceeded with.