Loading ITAT cases…
68 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent judgment. The original order allowing the deduction under Section 80P was valid at the time it was passed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154. The rectification was based on a subsequent judgment which should not have been applied retrospectively to overturn a prior favorable order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying its own order under Section 154 based on a subsequent judgment without proper inquiry. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) initially allowed the deduction based on a High Court judgment but later rectified the order based on a subsequent Full Bench judgment of the same High Court. The Tribunal's decision is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it implies a reconsideration of the deduction claim in light of the later ruling.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without considering the department's appeal status. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without considering the department's right to appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the jurisdictional High Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. had held that a certificate issued by the statutory authority was relevant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. It held that the disallowance of proportionate interest on funds diverted to sister concerns is of no consequence if the assessee's income is exempted under Section 10A.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in treating the income from lending funds to partners as 'income from other sources'. However, the interest payment was not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) in light of the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which was stayed by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in treating the income from lending funds to partners as 'income from other sources'. However, the interest payment was not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) in light of the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which was stayed by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in treating the income from lending funds to partners as 'income from other sources'. However, the interest payment was not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) in light of the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which was stayed by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had initially allowed the deduction based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, the CIT(A) later rectified this order based on a subsequent Full Bench judgment of the same High Court. The appeal was filed against this rectification order.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to challenge the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the invalidity of the reassessment. Since the grounds of appeal were not corrected despite opportunities, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure consistency as the appeal for the seller of the land was also pending before the same CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on advances to sister concerns was not allowable as commercial expediency was not proven. It also upheld the disallowance of interest on loans taken in directors' names due to non-deduction of TDS, as the loans were recorded as being from directors.
The Tribunal restored the issue of subvention expenses to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce sale invoices. The addition for expenditure incurred in setting up a new unit was confirmed. The addition for deemed interest on funds diverted to the sister concern was deleted, finding commercial expediency for the advances.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) initially allowed the deduction based on a jurisdictional High Court judgment. However, the CIT(A) later rectified this order under Section 154 based on a subsequent Full Bench decision of the same High Court. The Tribunal's decision on the merits of the case is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it implies a review of the rectification order.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT held that a certificate issued by a statutory authority regarding the nature of a co-operative society's business needs to be considered. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the assessee's activities in light of this and other relevant judgments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying his earlier order under Section 154 based on a subsequent High Court judgment without considering the department's right to appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the initial order allowing the deduction was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling.