Loading ITAT cases…
85 tribunal orders from the Dehradun bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 85 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, since Form No. 5 was not produced, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the University of Calgary did not 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or know-how to ONGC personnel as required by the India-Canada DTAA. Therefore, the payments could not be treated as 'fees for included services' and were not taxable as FTS in India.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning inventory write-off, following its own precedents and other High Court decisions. For disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and excess interest, the matters were remanded back to the AO for reconciliation and verification. Foreign exchange loss was allowed, consistent with prior years.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the University of Calgary did not 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or know-how to ONGC personnel as required by the India-Canada DTAA. Therefore, the payments could not be treated as 'fees for included services' and were not taxable as FTS in India.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning inventory write-off, following its own precedents and other High Court decisions. For disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and excess interest, the matters were remanded back to the AO for reconciliation and verification. Foreign exchange loss was allowed, consistent with prior years.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the University of Calgary did not 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or know-how to ONGC personnel as required by the India-Canada DTAA. Therefore, the payments could not be treated as 'fees for included services' and were not taxable as FTS in India.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the University of Calgary did not 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or know-how to ONGC personnel as required by the India-Canada DTAA. Therefore, the payments could not be treated as 'fees for included services' and were not taxable as FTS in India.
The Tribunal held that UEPPCB is a statutory organization formed by an Act of Government and is a non-taxable entity. Therefore, no penalty is leviable under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was imposed were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings were no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were deleted.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition. It was held that the assessee had sufficient own funds, and the financial position had not been disputed by the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that UEPPCB is a statutory organization formed by an Act of Government and is a non-taxable entity. Therefore, no penalty is leviable under Section 271C for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was imposed were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings were no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was imposed were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings were no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was imposed were deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty proceedings were no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were deleted.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated, as an omnibus notice suffers from vagueness and indicates a non-application of mind. Therefore, the penalty levied was unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, finding no error in the rejection of the registration application. The assessee failed to provide sufficient material to establish the genuineness of its charitable activities and appeared to be operating for commercial gain.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to file submissions and evidence. This was done in the interest of justice to allow for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity for the assessee to file submissions and evidence. This was done in the interest of justice to allow for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the addition for property purchase was wrongly made in the assessee's hands as the property was purchased by a company. The addition for alleged undisclosed capital gains was deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any rebuttal material against the findings of the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the additions made were sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any rebuttal material against the findings of the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the additions made were sustained.
The Tribunal found that the ITAT's earlier order intended to restore the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, not the AO. However, due to the confusion and lack of representation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after obtaining a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted any inquiry to verify the assessee's claim that the land was agricultural and not a capital asset. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 read with Section 143(3) is void ab initio and bad in law. This decision was based on the admitted fact that notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Consortium Nussli Comfort Net, which held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) in reassessment proceedings prior to finalizing the order cannot be condoned by referring to Section 292BB. Section 292BB deals with the failure of service of notice, not the failure to issue notice. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed. Ground No. 3 of the additional grounds raised by the assessee was allowed. As this ground was decided in favour of the assessee, grounds 1 and 2 of the additional grounds, as well as other regular grounds, were rendered academic and not decided.
The Tribunal noted that both assessees had submitted letters seeking to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both assessees had submitted letters seeking to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both assessees had submitted letters seeking to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both assessees had submitted letters seeking to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both assessees had submitted letters seeking to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that both assessees had submitted letters seeking to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of a coordinate bench in similar appeals for prior assessment years, which had decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to prove the expenditure and verify the installation of the boring tubewell. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to provide cogent evidence to justify contractual receipts as the source of bank deposits. The AO is to verify these and tax accordingly after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of a new unit under Section 80IC(8)(ix) allows for claiming 100% exemption beyond the initial five years, provided it's within the ten-year period. They found no contrary binding decision from the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for ad-hoc expenses on consultancy receipts was allowable. It relied on previous ITAT decisions in similar cases involving IIT professors where such expenses were allowed, and noted that the Revenue had accepted those orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were null and void due to the lack of proper approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.