Loading ITAT cases…
294 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal decided that in view of the assessees opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeals filed are liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. However, the assessees can approach the Tribunal if any prejudice is caused regarding the settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the DRP's proceedings, upholding the inclusion of M/s. Ashnoor Textiles Mills Ltd. as a comparable and the direction for appropriate adjustment of personnel costs. Consequently, the upward adjustment was revised to Nil.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default and is bound to decide the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to furnish complete details and was granted an opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C, which allows considering the agreement value if it's lower than the stamp duty value, should be applied liberally. The capital gains are to be computed considering the fair market value as per the date of the sale agreement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-verify the source of cash deposits as submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings. Additions are to be restricted to the extent deposits remain unexplained, with the onus on the assessee to substantiate the source.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the payments in question were not made during the relevant assessment year (AY 2010-11) but in a subsequent financial year (2013-14). Therefore, the demand raised against the assessee for AY 2010-11 was invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the disputed amount was offered for taxation in a subsequent assessment year. If confirmed, the assessee's claim should be allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeals due to medical reasons. It reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on unexplained investments in land and cash found during the search, directing deletion of additions. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions for unexplained credits in the names of Mr. Sivaraman & Mr. K.Murugesan.
The Tribunal held that the non-compete fees received by the assessee were capital receipts and not chargeable to tax. The introduction of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act, making such receipts taxable, was effective from April 1, 2003, and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that DCF is a prescribed method for share valuation. However, the assessee had not justified the valuation using its own cash flows. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh determination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to justify the valuation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeals due to medical reasons. It reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on unexplained investments in land and cash found during the search, directing deletion of additions. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions for unexplained credits in the names of Mr. Sivaraman & Mr. K.Murugesan.
The Tribunal held that while a show-cause notice is not strictly required in revisionary proceedings, an opportunity of hearing must be granted. Due to the COVID-19 situation preventing the assessee from availing this opportunity, the matter was restored to the Principal Commissioner.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed further details which were not considered in the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's reply.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeals due to medical reasons. It reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on unexplained investments in land and cash found during the search, directing deletion of additions. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions for unexplained credits in the names of Mr. Sivaraman & Mr. K.Murugesan.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, set aside the impugned orders to provide another opportunity for hearing. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, set aside the impugned orders to provide another opportunity for hearing. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found contradictions in the documents regarding the extent of land sold and the sale consideration received. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO to ascertain the correct factual matrix, including the aggregate sale consideration and the applicability of Section 50C.
The Tribunal held that the assets in question were integral parts of the co-generation plant and eligible for 80% depreciation. It also found that the assessee fulfilled all conditions for claiming additional depreciation on new plant and machinery.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that expenses incurred to earn other income could not be allowed as business expenses. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses was justified.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, set aside the impugned orders to provide another opportunity for hearing. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeals due to medical reasons. It reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on unexplained investments in land and cash found during the search, directing deletion of additions. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions for unexplained credits in the names of Mr. Sivaraman & Mr. K.Murugesan.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeals due to medical reasons. It reversed the CIT(A)'s findings on unexplained investments in land and cash found during the search, directing deletion of additions. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain additions for unexplained credits in the names of Mr. Sivaraman & Mr. K.Murugesan.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce evidence to prove that the cash withdrawals were used for the property purchase and that these were reflected in the books of account. Therefore, the addition was sustained.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for belated PF & ESI payments, following the Supreme Court's decision in Alom Extrusions. However, the issue of idle capacity adjustment was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as the loan transaction was not properly examined. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the facts were not clear regarding the timing of the refund determination and the assessee's request. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and computation.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer determined undisclosed income without fully considering the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The CIT(A) also summarily rejected the assessee's arguments.