Loading ITAT cases…
35 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that a valid condonation petition was not filed as it was signed by the advocate without proper authorization. Consequently, the appeal was not admitted.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is leviable only from the date the enabling provision, Section 200A, came into effect (01.06.2015). Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is leviable only from the date the enabling provision, Section 200A, came into effect (01.06.2015). Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) would only apply to the portion of expenses paid to medical professionals. The rest of the payments made to retailers and dealers were not covered by the circular.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is leviable only from the date the enabling provision, Section 200A, came into effect (01.06.2015). Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is leviable only from the date the enabling provision, Section 200A, came into effect (01.06.2015). Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the Entry Tax payment and interest are allowable expenses, but remanded the issue to the AO for verification. The addition for estimated sale of wastage was deleted as it was considered a reasonable claim with no market value.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is leviable only from the date the enabling provision, Section 200A, came into effect (01.06.2015). Therefore, the levy for periods prior to this date was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based solely on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission report without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and issue a specific notice for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A, making the penalty invalid. The notice was ambiguous regarding underreporting or misreporting.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunities to be heard and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal observed that six notices were sent to the assessee with no response, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. However, considering the assessee's claim of not being provided proper opportunities, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be levied on a fresh ground for which the assessee was not given notice. Since the AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars but levied it for concealment of income, the penalty order was not valid.
The Tribunal held that depreciation must be allowed as the assessee is treated as running a business. However, the MMR was upheld as the individual shares of members in the AOP were indeterminative. The TDS credit issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that disallowing entire expenditure in an intimation under section 143(1) is not permissible, especially when it involves a debatable issue. Such an intimation was found to be erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the brought forward business loss or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is lower, should be considered on a cumulative basis for computing book profit. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the correct amounts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the adjournment petition and dismissed the appeal without granting adequate opportunity. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to examine the exemption claim. The assessee was registered under Section 12AA and had filed the necessary Form 10B, making it eligible for exemption under Section 11, and the revenue had not dislodged these findings.
The Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and issue notices for clarification if further details are required.
The Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and issue notices for clarification if further details are required.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case with supporting documents. The CIT(A) is to re-adjudicate the matter after providing a due hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the minimal delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the minimal delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and did not provide sufficient evidence for the cash deposits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient details to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the members from whom cash deposits were allegedly received. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee had not produced crucial evidence before the AO, which was later presented to the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, as the evidence was crucial for deciding the issues.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the issues on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 171-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's affidavit. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the provision for imbalances, calculated based on specific workings against advances to PACS, qualifies as an ascertained doubtful debt eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). However, the provision for infrastructure development was held to be an unascertained liability and not eligible for this deduction.
The Tribunal held that a completed project does not mean no further expenditure can be incurred, especially for rectifications or finishing touches. The Tribunal found that a significant portion of the expenditure was not disputed by the AO and the remaining expenditure, including lift costs, was also attributable to the 'De-Habitat' project.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) was not applicable to the assessee. Both issues were set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all necessary documentary evidence. This was done because no documentary evidence was furnished by the assessee before the CIT(Exemption).