Loading ITAT cases…
31 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to suppressed production and compensatory afforestation fund, finding the difference negligible and the expenditure revenue in nature. The deletion of additions for late EPF payment was also upheld based on prospective amendment of relevant sections. However, the disallowance of ad-hoc travelling and conveyance expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the fact of holding cash in hand in the preceding assessment years, as evidenced by their returns. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash in hand was considered plausible.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as no proper enquiry was conducted by him before passing the order. It was also held that the Principal CIT could not impose his opinion over a possible view taken by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that WATCO qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India due to government ownership and control, and therefore, its income is exempt from Union taxation under Article 289.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee's consistent method of closing stock valuation should not be disturbed. Similarly, salary payments to sons were deemed reasonable given their responsibilities and past practice, and Section 14A disallowance was not applicable in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that if the income tax demand for AY 2010-2011 was included in the 'provision for income tax old' as stated in the resolution plan, then the demand would be paid as per the plan. If it was not included, then the liability stood frozen upon NCLT's approval of the resolution plan, and no claim could be made.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee's consistent method of closing stock valuation should not be disturbed. Similarly, salary payments to sons were deemed reasonable given their responsibilities and past practice, and Section 14A disallowance was not applicable in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. The revenue's appeals were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT instruction relied upon by the Pr. CIT was not issued under Section 119 of the IT Act, thus invalidating its use for revision. Furthermore, the issues raised by the Pr. CIT had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A) in appeal, limiting the Pr. CIT's powers under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was required to file a return within 30 days of a Section 153A notice, the delay in obtaining seized documents provided a valid ground for non-filing. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was required to file a return within 30 days of a Section 153A notice, the delay in obtaining seized documents provided a valid ground for non-filing. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence for the entry tax without proper procedure and remanded the issue back to the AO. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for salary and agent commission provisions, finding that these liabilities had accrued.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The addition for ex-gratia to deceased employees was deleted, while the provision for fraud was restored to the AO for verification. The denial of deduction under Section 80P was upheld, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee categorically denied giving the loan and had no control over the company, the onus shifted to the revenue to prove the document's truth. The audited balance sheet of a third-party company was considered a 'dumb document' in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessment was invalid as it was initiated in the name of a deceased person. Issuing a fresh notice to the legal heirs was required, which was not done.
The Tribunal held that the AO was aware of the valuation report and the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Following a Special Bench decision, the AO is directed to recompute capital gains based on the fair market value as per the valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the AO was aware of the valuation report and the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Following a Special Bench decision, the AO is directed to recompute capital gains based on the fair market value as per the valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 could not extend to issues beyond those covered in the limited scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was upheld only for issues that were part of the original limited scrutiny, while directions on other issues were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) failed to conduct necessary inquiries after the assessee provided a detailed reply and calculations. The CIT's order was found unsustainable due to the lack of proper verification.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had received Form No. 3. Consequently, the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal was granted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue of penalty to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after the decision on the merits of the addition by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal decided on the allowability of various expenses, often allowing them in part. For instance, certain peripheral development and community development expenses were allowed, while others were disallowed due to lack of nexus with business or non-compliance with guidelines. Provisions for unascertained liabilities were also addressed, with some being restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal held that denying exemption under Section 11(2) in a 143(1) intimation is not permissible as the delay in filing Form 10 can be condoned under Section 119(2)(b), making it a debatable issue not suitable for prima facie adjustment.