Loading ITAT cases…
162 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had neither adjudicated the jurisdictional issue nor the merits of the case in a speaking order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the AO correctly valued the closing stock. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to ascertain the correct market value of the closing stock as per Section 145A of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine whether the project was an expansion of an existing business or a new one, and whether the expenses were allowable. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of ALP for management services as Nil was unsustainable as the assessee had provided evidence of services rendered. For interest on convertible debentures, the Tribunal ruled that the DRP's determination of ALP as Nil was incorrect and directed re-computation based on SBI Prime Lending Rate with a markup.
The Tribunal noted that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned. It remitted the matter back to the AO to verify if any exempt income was earned and also to examine the availability of interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land under the RFCTLARR Act is exempt from income tax, following a CBDT circular and a Kerala High Court judgment. The Assessing Officer's taxation of the compensation as short-term capital gains was deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revision order, noting that while the advance and credit balance were accounted for, the depreciation claimed by the assessee was excessive. The AO, in giving effect to the revision order, correctly disallowed excess depreciation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for certain assessees. It deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for certain assessees. It deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer should have provided another opportunity for the assessee to explain the alleged cash receipt. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate its claim for higher depreciation on windmills before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, noting that the assessee provided new details before it, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision. The assessee was directed to furnish all details to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2010-11 as withdrawn. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to lack of evidence regarding the source of funds for payments.
The Tribunal held that the period of holding should be considered from the date of allotment (1984) and not the sale deed (2012), thus treating it as a long-term capital asset. It also directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54F, considering the liberal interpretation and circumstances beyond the assessee's control for delayed construction.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the land was indeed agricultural land and not a capital asset, thus exempt from capital gains tax. The Tribunal also remanded an issue regarding service tax payment to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT, the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for certain assessees. It deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for certain assessees. It deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for certain assessees. It deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54F could not be fully allowed as the investment in one flat was made by a third party (daughter) from independent sources. However, the deduction was allowed to the extent of the investment made in the name of the other daughter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to substantiate its claim for higher depreciation on windmills before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back for fresh consideration.
The tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for certain assessees. It deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. The issue of unexplained cash deposits was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer hurriedly confirmed the original assessment without verifying prepaid taxes. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh verification of 26AS and credit of prepaid taxes.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal for AY 2010-11 as withdrawn. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to lack of evidence regarding the source of funds for payments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have waited for the decision of the CBDT on the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass an order after the CBDT's decision.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing the sudden resignation of a key employee and health issues of the managing director, to be reasonable. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's scientific estimation of disallowance under normal provisions should be accepted. For book profit computation under Section 115JB, no such disallowance can be made, following its own previous decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. This was done in light of the moratorium period under the IBC, which prohibits legal proceedings against the corporate debtor.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue. This was done in light of the moratorium period under the IBC, which prohibits legal proceedings against the corporate debtor.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic and, in the interest of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such computation was effective from that date. The levy was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the liability to M/s Binny Ltd. had not ceased as it was offset by a corresponding amount due from a related party. Subsequent ledger extracts confirmed the settlement of these amounts.
The Tribunal held that pre-commencement expenses incurred before the actual take-off of a project should be capitalized along with project expenditure, not allowed as business expenditure. The claim for write-off of advances as bad debts was also denied as it was not a business transaction.
The Tribunal held that pre-commencement expenses incurred before the actual take-off of a project should be capitalized along with project expenditure, not allowed as business expenditure. The claim for write-off of advances as bad debts was also denied as it was not a business transaction.
The Tribunal held that pre-commencement expenses incurred before the actual take-off of a project should be capitalized along with project expenditure, not allowed as business expenditure. The claim for write-off of advances as bad debts was also denied as it was not a business transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's medical condition and the pandemic. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the Cost Sharing Agreement, the nature of services, and other relevant documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the Cost Sharing Agreement, the nature of services, and other relevant documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contention regarding the availability of interest-free funds more than the investments to be reasonable. It also agreed that administrative expenses should only be calculated on investments yielding exempt income.
The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee purchased and registered a property. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for chit loss by following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition for unexplained credit as the assessee provided confirmation letters before the CIT(A) and the AO did not comment on them.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's medical condition and the pandemic. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if the conditions of Section 47(xiii) are fulfilled, the unabsorbed depreciation of the predecessor firm is deemed to be the depreciation of the successor company. Therefore, the full claim is admissible.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs or less should not be filed by the Revenue. This circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it was held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit for appeals.