Loading ITAT cases…
210 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry during the assessment proceedings, and the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous merely because the Commissioner disagreed with the assessment. Furthermore, the pendency of the assessment order before the first appellate authority also barred the revisional jurisdiction.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the Section 10A claim on merits, following a CBDT order condoning the delay. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that filing returns under Section 139 is mandatory for claiming Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised his powers under section 263 to set aside the assessment order. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-verify and investigate the profits and losses from share dealings, considering data from the Investigation Wing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the purchaser whose statement was used against the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the Section 10A claim on merits, following a CBDT order condoning the delay. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that filing returns under Section 139 is mandatory for claiming Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be valid and beyond her control. The Tribunal also decided to set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-examination based on the newly furnished certificate.
The Tribunal held that since the building was completed and let out during the financial year relevant to the assessment year, the interest paid on the borrowed capital for construction is deductible against rental income.
The Tribunal held that the order giving effect to the ITAT's order was indeed barred by limitation as per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was quashed.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the Section 10A claim on merits, following a CBDT order condoning the delay. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that filing returns under Section 139 is mandatory for claiming Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a payment to the State Legal Aid Authority. The matter was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed capital for acquiring land classified as stock-in-trade is a revenue expenditure and not subject to capitalization. The proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) applies only to capital assets, not inventory.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For one appeal, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For the other appeal, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the Section 10A claim on merits, following a CBDT order condoning the delay. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that filing returns under Section 139 is mandatory for claiming Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues on merits and confirmed the additions without a proper hearing. To meet the ends of natural justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the tax audit report contained an inadvertent error regarding the date of payment of employee's PF contribution. The assessee provided evidence of timely remittance, thus the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry during the assessment proceedings, and the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous merely because the Commissioner disagreed with the assessment. Furthermore, the pendency of the assessment order before the first appellate authority also barred the revisional jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for short deduction of tax on connectivity expenses was not attracted. It also directed the AO to allow depreciation at 60% on software. However, the provision for slow-moving inventory and the provision for VAT assessment demand were not allowed as they were prior period items or subsumed in the valuation method.
The Tribunal held that the order giving effect to the ITAT's order was indeed barred by limitation as per Section 153(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, which violates Rule 46A. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the building was completed and let out during the financial year relevant to the assessment year, the interest paid on the borrowed capital for construction is deductible against rental income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It admitted additional evidence and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the specific legal ground challenging the validity of the re-opening of assessment, which is a duty of the appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as there was no tangible material to suggest escapement of income, and the reopening was done beyond the prescribed time limit without proper justification. The surplus from the sale of land was not to be treated as business income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the specific ground challenging the legality of the reassessment proceedings, which is a mandatory duty of the appellate authority.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had withdrawn ₹.24,00,000/- in cash earlier for medical treatment but could not demonstrate the exact amount spent or remaining. Considering the propensity to save, the Tribunal granted 50% relief on the remaining addition.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The assessee's counsel filed a petition to withdraw the appeal as instructed by the assessee. The Revenue did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd, holding that belated payment of employee's contribution to EPF/ESI is not allowable under Section 43B and is to be treated as income under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x).
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years, which was upheld by the Madras High Court. Therefore, the deduction under Section 10AA was to be granted.
The assessee's counsel, instructed by the assessee, prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal. The revenue did not oppose this request.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the Section 10A claim on merits, following a CBDT order condoning the delay. For AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that filing returns under Section 139 is mandatory for claiming Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were valid and the grounds raised by the assessee regarding procedural defects and lack of concealment were not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Tribunal decisions regarding limitation and the validity of penalty levies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee raised a new legal ground regarding the reopening of assessment before the ITAT, which was not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the CIT(A) should be given an opportunity to adjudicate this legal ground.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the provision for sales incentives, agreeing that it was an ascertained liability. For export commission, it upheld the deletion for payments to non-residents outside India, but remanded the issue of payments to resident agents for verification of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee raised a new legal ground regarding the reopening of assessment before the ITAT, which was not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the CIT(A) should be given an opportunity to adjudicate this legal ground.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For one appeal, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For the other appeal, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest disallowance was not justified as the assessee's own funds exceeded investments and no nexus of interest-bearing funds was established. Indirect disallowance should be computed considering only investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputed tax under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the disputed tax under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that due to the moratorium period under the IBC, no suits or legal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee were dismissed.
The tribunal held that due to the moratorium period under the IBC, no suits or legal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee were dismissed.
The tribunal held that due to the moratorium period under the IBC, no suits or legal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee were dismissed.
The tribunal held that due to the moratorium period under the IBC, no suits or legal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee were dismissed.