Loading ITAT cases…
186 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that refurbishment charges are for repairs and not fees for technical services, thus not attracting TDS provisions. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA on interest income, following its own earlier order.
The Tribunal found the method used by the AO to determine the aerial distance to be questionable and not properly confronted to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if their declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. It allowed the withdrawal of the appeals, with a liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the submission that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the settlement.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54F by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on both residential units purchased.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice arises from the scheme's settlement.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal letter and the submission that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond the four-year period stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the slump sale was a valid business reorganization for Section 10A purposes. It agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no mismatch in asset values and no splitting or reconstruction of the business, thus upholding the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee needs to furnish further details to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash gift donors and evidence of agricultural activities. The disallowance under Section 14A for AY 2012-13 was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business was set up during the assessment year as evidenced by land purchase and application for planning permits. It also ruled that interest earned on bank deposits, temporarily parked funds for business purposes, should be reduced from the project cost rather than being taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the rectification orders passed by the AO under section 154 were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed four-year period from the date of the original order. Therefore, the rectification orders were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that neither the CIT(A) nor the AO had recorded any findings regarding the deletion of assets and the accumulation. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing a pro-rata deduction based on established High Court and Tribunal precedents. The Revenue's contention regarding the construction agreement date was also found to be unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the rectification orders passed by the AO under section 154 were barred by limitation as they were passed beyond the prescribed four-year period from the date of the original order. Therefore, the rectification orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50.00 lakhs or less should not be filed by the Revenue and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to work out pro-rata deduction based on established High Court and Tribunal precedents. The contention of the Revenue regarding the construction agreement date was also ruled out.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F even if construction was not completed within three years, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. It also held that the benefit of section 54F could be claimed on multiple properties prior to the amendment in 2015.
The Tribunal held that 'tax' includes surcharge and education cess, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Madras. Therefore, the exclusion of these components from MAT credit was incorrect.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the same income was offered for taxation in a subsequent assessment year. If it was, then it cannot be taxed in the current year.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee to submit documentary evidence for condoning the delay. The penalty appeal was also remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee to submit documentary evidence for condoning the delay. The penalty appeal was also remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee to submit documentary evidence for condoning the delay. The penalty appeal was also remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee to submit documentary evidence for condoning the delay. The penalty appeal was also remitted for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) to rebut the Inspector's report and substantiate their claim for deduction under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the surplus distributed to SHGs is not taxable as it is based on principles of mutuality. It also ruled that the assessee trusts, acting as facilitators and representative assessees for SHGs, are not liable for TDS under Section 194A on interest payments.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was done beyond the four-year period stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the slump sale was a valid business reorganization for Section 10A purposes. It agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no mismatch in asset values and no splitting or reconstruction of the business, thus upholding the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the surplus distributed to SHGs is not taxable as it is based on principles of mutuality. It also ruled that the assessee trusts, acting as facilitators and representative assessees for SHGs, are not liable for TDS under Section 194A on interest payments.
The Tribunal held that the entire addition under Section 69C was not sustainable as the purchased material would have been consumed in manufacturing. It estimated the profit element in unaccounted purchases at 10% and allowed the balance addition to be deleted. For the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to demonstrate fulfillment of conditions under the second proviso.
The Tribunal held that the assessee needs to furnish further details to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash gift donors and evidence of agricultural activities. The disallowance under Section 14A for AY 2012-13 was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and should not be adjusted while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and should not be adjusted while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and should not be adjusted while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be based on objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and should not be adjusted while computing book profits under Section 115JB. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for fresh decision.