Loading ITAT cases…
196 tribunal orders from the Dehradun bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 196 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that service tax reimbursement is not includible in gross receipts for Section 44BB computation, following a High Court decision. It also directed the AO to accept the assessee's profit attribution rate of 2% for Indian operations, considering the comparables provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in gross receipts for Section 44BB computation, following the Delhi High Court ruling in Mitchell Drilling International. It also held that the assessee is not liable for interest under Section 234B, as per the Uttarakhand High Court decision in Maersk Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were declared illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were declared illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were declared illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of service tax input credit receivable by the assessee was an allowable business expense. It also directed the AO to allow set-off of business losses against income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not includible in gross receipts for Section 44BB computation, following the Delhi High Court ruling in Mitchell Drilling International. It also held that the assessee is not liable for interest under Section 234B, as per the Uttarakhand High Court decision in Maersk Co. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) by an officer without jurisdiction is void ab initio. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings are quashed for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of service tax input credit receivable by the assessee was an allowable business expense. It also directed the AO to allow set-off of business losses against income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were declared illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the documentation provided by the assessee was insufficient to prove that the share and commodity transactions were delivery-based or eligible under the exceptions to speculative transactions. Therefore, the losses were rightly treated as speculative.
The Tribunal held that the documentation provided by the assessee was insufficient to prove that the share and commodity transactions were delivery-based or eligible under the exceptions to speculative transactions. Therefore, the losses were rightly treated as speculative.
The Tribunal held that if the quantum assessment is quashed, the penalty proceedings stemming from it would also be invalid. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the daughter-in-law's admission regarding the gold bars, claimed to be for her daughters' marriages, could not be discarded. Therefore, the addition in the hands of the assessee was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not rectified the defects in the appeal and had not appeared for several hearings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as defective.
The Tribunal held that prior sanction under Section 151 of the Act from the competent authority is mandatory before reopening an assessment. As no such approval was on record, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was void ab initio, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that prior sanction under Section 151 of the Act from the competent authority is mandatory before reopening an assessment. As no such approval was on record, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was void ab initio, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal is hearing an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee is seeking relief from an addition made by the AO, referencing a challan payment made on 14-03-2013.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following binding precedents, the Tribunal found the notice to be bad in law.
The Tribunal held that since the DVO's valuation was accepted and became final in the case of the co-owner, the same valuation should be adopted for the assessee to avoid differential treatment. The AO was directed to recompute the capital gains based on the DVO's report.
The Tribunal held that receipts from seismic data acquisition, processing, and related services are not FTS as they are covered by the exclusion for "mining or like activities" under Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii), and are thus taxable under Section 44BB. The Tribunal also held that service tax reimbursements are not includible in gross turnover for Section 44BB computation.
The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeal and requested to withdraw it. The Tribunal granted permission for withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that in case of substantial expansion, the year of completion becomes the 'initial assessment year' for claiming 100% deduction. This deduction is allowable for a total period of 10 years, irrespective of multiple expansions.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12 was valid as the AO had tangible material. The disallowance of interest was upheld by relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, as the assessee's own prior appeal on the same issue was not ascertainable.
The CIT(Appeals) deleted the disallowances, finding that the assessee had substantiated its claims with evidence and that the Assessing Officer's reasoning was not supported by facts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding it lacked proper reasoning and a thorough discussion of the facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12 was valid as the AO had tangible material. The disallowance of interest was upheld by relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, as the assessee's own prior appeal on the same issue was not ascertainable.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the restriction of expense disallowance after considering the evidence. The deletion of liquidated damages was also deemed justified as it was adjusted against prior year receivables.
The Tribunal held that GST receipts should not be included in the gross revenue for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This decision followed the High Courts of Delhi and Uttarakhand, which ruled that GST is a statutory levy and not income of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that GST receipts should not be included in the gross revenue for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This decision followed the High Courts' rulings that GST is a statutory levy and not income of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it was vague and did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Following the decisions of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income should be determined on a presumptive basis as per Section 44BB(1) of the Act. Consequently, various disallowances made by the AO were liable for deletion.
The CIT(A) held that since the assessee follows the percentage of completion method, the cash advances should be taxed in the year revenue is recognized, not the year of receipt. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, subject to verification of subsequent taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, finding that income from the sale of scrap (packing material) and cheque return charges were not derived from the assessee's industrial undertaking or manufacturing process.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order before passing the final assessment order rendered the final order invalid. Consequently, the final assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in faulting the AO for not cross-examining the transferor and for not providing sufficient details on the transferor's creditworthiness. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeal afresh on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals technically without adjudicating the merits. To serve the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessees to rectify the mistakes and file necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals technically without adjudicating the merits. To serve the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessees to rectify the mistakes and file necessary documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals technically without adjudicating the merits. To serve the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessees to rectify the mistakes and file necessary documents.