Loading ITAT cases…
22 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, including issues related to interest on disputed government duty, peripheral development expenses, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and revaluation of non-moving stores and spares. Some appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, some were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The tribunal decided to modify its previous order to reflect the correct name of the Departmental Representative (DR). The original order's disposal of the appeal remains unchanged in substance.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1)(a). The AO also incorrectly calculated the disallowance based on average total investment instead of average of investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late filing fee under Section 234E was not permissible prior to the amendment of Section 200A of the Act. The issue of interest under Sections 201(1A) and 220(2) was remitted to the CIT(A) for a reasoned order, with a direction to rectify a specific calculation error.
The Tribunal found that the investments were recorded in the assessee's bank accounts and were supported by withdrawals from her and her husband's accounts. Considering the factual aspects and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) regarding the proviso is not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year in question, and the disallowance on commission payments was upheld. However, issues related to EPF and gratuity payments were remanded for further verification.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalties under Sections 271A and 271B, upholding the lower authorities' decisions. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), finding that the assessee had made some compliance.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalties under Sections 271A and 271B, upholding the lower authorities' decisions. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), finding that the assessee had made some compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the AO to explain the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination and adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's share application money was pending allotment for a long time and raised several questions regarding its treatment and the utilization of funds. Due to unanswered questions and the need for further examination, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal dismissed appeals related to penalties under Sections 271A and 271B, upholding the lower authorities' decisions. However, it allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under Section 271(1)(b), finding that the assessee had made some compliance.