Loading ITAT cases…
171 tribunal orders from the Dehradun bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 171 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing the CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT. The Revenue can approach for recall if the tax effect is higher or falls under exceptions.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed depreciation on the transferred assets. It noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years by the ITAT.
The Tribunal had previously deleted the quantum addition which formed the basis for the penalty. Therefore, the penalty no longer survived.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this request.
Since the quantum addition was restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied under Section 271AAA, which was based on that addition, would not survive. The Tribunal restored the penalty order to the Assessing Officer for consideration along with the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without allowing the Assessing Officer to verify it and in passing a non-speaking order for deletion of additions. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for education cess based on High Court decisions. For several other grounds, including transfer pricing and disallowance of expenses, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The ground regarding violation of natural justice was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that no additions could be made in the absence of seized material and that the assessment could not be treated as abated. Therefore, the additions made were not legally valid.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of assets constituted a demerger, and the liabilities taken over represented the cost of these assets. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the written-down value of the assets.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets acquired through demerger, as the liabilities transferred represent the cost of assets. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for prior period expenses, finding no jeopardy to revenue interests.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on that assessment cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets acquired through demerger, as the liabilities transferred represent the cost of assets. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for prior period expenses, finding no jeopardy to revenue interests.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not form part of the gross receipts for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets acquired through demerger, as the liabilities transferred represent the cost of assets. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for prior period expenses, finding no jeopardy to revenue interests.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) disputed the timely submission of Form-10 and that they failed to consider the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its own earlier order in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for eco-tourism and was therefore eligible for the deduction under Section 80IC. The disallowance was set aside.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not form part of the gross receipts for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets acquired through demerger, as the liabilities transferred represent the cost of assets. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for prior period expenses, finding no jeopardy to revenue interests.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets acquired through demerger, as the liabilities transferred represent the cost of assets. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for prior period expenses, finding no jeopardy to revenue interests.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vague as it did not specifically state the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following various High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty levied to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not have any element of income and therefore cannot form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not form part of its gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This is because service tax is a statutory levy and the assessee acts merely as a collection agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. Following the Delhi High Court and Uttarakhand High Court judgments, it was determined that service tax is a statutory levy and the assessee acts merely as a collection agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not have any element of income and therefore cannot form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, also applies to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT clarification. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection also became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not have an element of income and therefore cannot form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not form part of the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collection agency for the government, and such receipts do not have an income element.
The Tribunal held that the consortium arrangement between TODDI and SASL did not constitute an AOP, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Linde AG. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the consortium arrangement between TODDI and SASL did not constitute an AOP, following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Linde AG. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection also became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT clarifications. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection also became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses incurred by the assessee are to be included in the gross receipts and are taxable under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court judgment in Sedco Forex International Inc.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection also became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for taxing receipts under Section 44BB or as FTS/Royalty is not legally supported. It further held that service tax reimbursements do not form part of the aggregate taxable amount under Section 44BB.
The Tribunal held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for taxing receipts under Section 44BB or as FTS/Royalty is not legally supported. It further held that service tax reimbursements do not form part of the aggregate taxable amount under Section 44BB.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the distinction between PSC and non-PSC partners for taxing receipts under Section 44BB or as FTS/Royalty is not legally supported. It further held that service tax reimbursements do not form part of the aggregate taxable amount under Section 44BB.