Loading ITAT cases…
288 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the principal component of lease rentals should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on the capitalized principal portion was reversed, and issues like foreign exchange loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the principal component of lease rentals should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on the capitalized principal portion was reversed, and issues like foreign exchange loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and accepted the LTCG after examining the relevant facts. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit their case, as an adjournment petition was filed but not considered before passing the order. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a reconciliation statement for the stock. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for re-deciding after considering the reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the properties were purchased by the HUF or that the HUF had any nucleus at the time of purchase. Consequently, the properties were considered to belong to the individuals, making the PCIT's revision order correct.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on existing material already on record and not on any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) considered fresh evidence without a remand report, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the salaries of the two employees were declared and offered for tax in their respective Income Tax Returns. Therefore, the amount should not be taxed twice.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, respectfully following the coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered and there were no distinguishing facts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of the claim of expenses towards investment written off without proper reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue of non-granting of tax credit under Section 115JAA.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of software development expenses for non-deduction of TDS, as the assessee failed to provide necessary documentation to prove the nature of payments. However, the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income was deleted, and depreciation on digital content was restricted to 25%.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015, was invalid, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay of a few hours in filing Form 10B was due to a genuine hardship beyond the assessee's control and should be condoned. The CIT(A)'s order denying exemption was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposited was explained by the rental income earned by the assessee. The assessee's explanation regarding maintaining separate personal and business accounts, with cash in hand from rental income, was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and accepted the LTCG after examining the relevant facts. Therefore, the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT were not justified.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order because the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal as un-admitted and simultaneously decide it on merits. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to first decide the delay condonation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on existing material already on record and not on any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not applicable as the assessee company, being the recipient of the loan, is not a shareholder or member of the lending company. Therefore, the loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It held that the CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order and decided the appeal on merits, rather than dismissing it for default.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It held that an appellate authority must decide appeals on merits and pass a speaking order, even if the assessee is absent.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted an opportunity to submit its valuation report and explain the method used.
The Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decision that the foreign currency loss on the loan for machinery is a capital loss. However, it directed the AO to allow depreciation on the machinery by including this forex loss in its cost.
The Tribunal held that the principal component of lease rentals should be allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on the capitalized principal portion was reversed, and issues like foreign exchange loss were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, following previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench and the Supreme Court, allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for both parties. Regarding the disallowance u/s. 14A, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of facts, particularly regarding the availability of own funds and segregation of investments yielding exempt income. The issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was also set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of payment dates.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unable to explain the source of investment before the revenue authorities and that further adjudication was required. With the consent of the Departmental Representative, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not make direct cash payments but deposited funds into the suppliers' bank accounts at their request. Since the genuineness of payments and suppliers was not in doubt, the disallowance was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revision powers merely because a different opinion exists or to conduct fishing inquiries. The assessment order was not erroneous as the AO had applied his mind and accepted the LTCG after due verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal considering the COVID-19 pandemic period. However, upon the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2012-13, finding sufficient cause. The issue for AY 2012-13 was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow 50% of the claimed expenditure as business expenditure, considering the need for administrative costs and depreciation. The remaining 50% of the business expenditure was to be disallowed and added back to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered additional evidence without confronting it to the AO, violating Rule 46A. The allowance of chit fund loss was also not supported by concrete material. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the payments were made under agreements, TDS provisions were complied with, and the payees declared the income. There was no evidence that the payments were excessive or unreasonable.