Loading ITAT cases…
219 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 for share application money without relying on any incriminating material found during the search. The assessments were framed based on information already on record, and the original assessments were unabated.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences and granting relief to the assessee without confronting them to the Ld. TPO, which was in violation of Rule 46A. It was noted that the issue of economic adjustment had been remitted by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 for de novo consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue of economic adjustment and re-computation of eligible profit under section 80IC back to the file of the Ld. AO/TPO for de novo consideration, keeping all issues open to enable the revenue to take a consistent stand. The grounds raised in the revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the disallowance under section 14A for book profit computation, the Tribunal, following the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment P. Ltd., held that no such disallowance could be made. Accordingly, the AO was directed not to add the disallowance under section 14A while computing book profit under section 115JB. The corresponding ground in the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer ought to have referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to ascertain the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property, as requested by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to refer the matter to the DVO for proper valuation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 for share application money without relying on any incriminating material found during the search. The assessments were framed based on information already on record, and the original assessments were unabated.
The Tribunal held that since a substantial portion of the sale consideration was received by cheque and only a meager amount was in cash, it was not a fit case for levying penalty. The Tribunal relied on a co-ordinate bench decision with similar facts.
The Tribunal held that since the excess stock was mixed with regular business stock and the assessee had no other source of income, it should be taxed as business income. The AO and CIT(A) erred in assessing it as unexplained investment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and that the order passed was not a speaking order.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and file necessary documents.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and file necessary documents.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's plea and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and file requisite documents.
The tribunal upheld the disallowance, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT. The alternative claim for deduction under Section 37(1) was rejected as special provisions prevail over general ones.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and file requisite documents.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and file necessary documents.
The ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and file requisite documents.
The Tribunal restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, providing another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case and file requisite documents, adhering to the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to substantiate its case with requisite details. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the issue based on the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and seek condonation of delay for the return of income.
The tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and file necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. However, due to the assessee's negligence, the appeal was restored to the first appellate authority for another opportunity to be heard and substantiate its stand.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case and provide the required details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the late payment of PF/ESI, following the Supreme Court's decision. For the retention money issue, the tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's consistent accounting practice.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating share trading profits/losses as capital gains. Based on the assessee's consistent claim and CBDT Circular No. 6/2016, such income should be assessed under 'business income'.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the jurisdiction acquired for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that for completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A are not permissible without incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessments, the assessee provided sufficient evidence of prior cash withdrawals to explain the deposits.
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities decided the case without considering the relevant materials. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the jurisdiction acquired for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Since this was not done, the jurisdiction acquired for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 was vitiated.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the appellant's representative as mentioned in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its earlier order dated July 7, 2023. The corrigendum corrected the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its earlier order dated July 7, 2023. The corrigendum corrected the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its earlier order dated July 7, 2023. The corrigendum corrected the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its earlier order dated July 7, 2023. The corrigendum corrected the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title.
The tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's Representative in the cause title. The name 'Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate' was to be read as 'Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate'.
The Tribunal decided to correct the name of the Appellant's representative in the cause title. The name is to be read as Mr. R. Gopala Kannan, Advocate.