Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of foreign currency transactions and their impact on capital vs. revenue accounts, following Supreme Court precedents. The previous order regarding slump sales was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of foreign currency transactions and their impact on capital vs. revenue accounts, following Supreme Court precedents. The previous order regarding slump sales was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a written contract is not a prerequisite for invoking Section 194C. Furthermore, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act (No.2), 2014, which limits disallowance to 30%, is not retrospective and cannot be applied to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a written contract is not a prerequisite for invoking Section 194C. Furthermore, the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act (No.2), 2014, which limits disallowance to 30%, is not retrospective and cannot be applied to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has a duty to make proper inquiries and cannot remain passive when claims warrant further investigation. The CIT was within his powers to treat an order as erroneous if further inquiries were not made, especially when it resulted in a potential loss of revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in these cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has a duty to make proper inquiries and cannot remain passive when claims warrant further investigation. The CIT was within his powers to treat an order as erroneous if further inquiries were not made, especially when it resulted in a potential loss of revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing a CBDT circular that sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these cases was below the specified limit, and no exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has a duty to make proper inquiries and cannot remain passive when claims warrant further investigation. The CIT was within his powers to treat an order as erroneous if further inquiries were not made, especially when it resulted in a potential loss of revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals because the tax effect in these cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular for filing appeals. The Revenue could not demonstrate any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals because the tax effect in these cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals because the tax effect in these cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has a duty to make proper inquiries and cannot remain passive when claims warrant further investigation. The CIT was within his powers to treat an order as erroneous if further inquiries were not made, especially when it resulted in a potential loss of revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect in all cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular, and no exceptions applied. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Petition if exceptions were met.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing a CBDT circular that sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these cases was below the prescribed limit, and no exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has a duty to make proper inquiries and cannot remain passive when claims warrant further investigation. The CIT was within his powers to treat an order as erroneous if further inquiries were not made, especially when it resulted in a potential loss of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the interest income from fixed deposits made for availing credit facilities should be examined by the Assessing Officer to determine if it qualifies as business income. The Tribunal also acknowledged that such income, if assessed as income from other sources, is eligible for set-off against unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as per the established legal precedent.
The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) with prior approval, and the penalty imposed was not time-barred. The assessee also failed to provide a reasonable cause for non-compliance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as per the established legal precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee's status as a co-operative society, eligible for the deduction, was affirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as per the established legal precedent.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must conduct an inquiry into the factual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, and is not solely bound by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as per the established legal precedent.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as co-operative societies.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as per the established legal precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee's status as a co-operative society, rather than a co-operative bank, was crucial for this allowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee, being a co-operative society, was entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was defeated due to the existence of nominal members who contributed to the fund but did not participate in the surplus. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must inquire into the actual activities of the assessee society to determine its eligibility for deduction under Section 80P. The AO is not bound solely by the registration certificate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deduction under Section 80P. The assessee societies were considered eligible for the deduction as per the established legal precedent.