Loading ITAT cases…
290 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to request for setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 Lakhs should not be pressed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's rectification order was void ab initio. This was because the DRP's original order dated 31.08.2010 had merged with the ITAT's subsequent order dated 16.09.2011, rendering the DRP's power to rectify it non-existent.
The Tribunal condoned the nominal delay in filing the appeal due to a security guard's medical emergency. Since the assessee did not appear to contest the penalty confirmed by the lower authorities, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee consistently followed its declared method of stock valuation and that the expenses were revenue in nature. The Tribunal also relied on its own previous orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that in preceding years, similar transport subsidies were allowed for deduction under Section 80-IC. As the revenue did not provide reasons for departing from this established practice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee consistently followed its declared method of stock valuation and that the expenses were revenue in nature. The Tribunal also relied on its own previous orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee consistently followed its declared method of stock valuation and that the expenses were revenue in nature. The Tribunal also relied on its own previous orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed to furnish accounts and that the AO should decide the matter afresh after considering the accounts and the approval granted by the competent authority. The CBDT had granted permission to admit the assessee's Form 10AA for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act deals with disallowance of expenditure, not with the estimation of income. Therefore, the AO's action of making an addition to income under this section was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as notices were not properly served. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal noted that in preceding years, similar transport subsidies were allowed for deduction under Section 80-IC. As the revenue did not provide reasons for departing from this established practice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the AO failed to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and partner withdrawals. Previous ITAT orders and the dismissal of the department's appeal for a subsequent year on identical facts supported this view.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of legal and professional charges and commission expenses, finding insufficient evidence of services rendered. The addition for low household withdrawals sustained by the CIT(A) was also deemed reasonable.
The Tribunal held that receipts for services in connection with exploration and production of mineral oil are taxable under Section 44BB, not Section 115A. It also held that service tax cannot be part of gross receipts for Section 44BB as it has no element of income.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's instruction to withdraw the appeal and the revenue's non-objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant. The assessee was given liberty to apply for setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a genuine and valid claim for TDS credit, as the TDS certificates were obtained later and reflected in a timely revised return. The reliance on the Goetz (India) Ltd. decision by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect in this context.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a genuine and valid claim for TDS credit, as the TDS certificates were obtained later and reflected in a timely revised return. The reliance on the Goetz (India) Ltd. decision by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect in this context.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim not accepted by the Revenue, if supported by full disclosure and debatable in nature, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Reliance Petroproducts, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a genuine and valid claim for TDS credit, as the TDS certificates were obtained later and reflected in a timely revised return. The reliance on the Goetz (India) Ltd. decision by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect in this context.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a genuine and valid claim for TDS credit, as the TDS certificates were obtained later and reflected in a timely revised return. The reliance on the Goetz (India) Ltd. decision by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect in this context.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order was invalid. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's case, the Tribunal ruled that the process of slitting jumbo rolls and printing thereon constitutes manufacturing. Therefore, the AO's allowance of deduction under Section 80IC was not erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in revising the assessment order as it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The CIT was not bound to make exhaustive inquiries before passing the revision order, and the assessee was not prejudiced.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to make these advances, and the advances were returned.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit additional evidence after seeking remand reports twice. The disallowance was ad hoc and not justified as the assessee's expenses were comparable to the previous year and no specific unverified vouchers were pointed out.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to make these advances, and the advances were returned.
The Tribunal held that the expenses, including interest, should have been allowable under 'Income from house property'. The assessee's admission of no business income did not automatically warrant a penalty, as there was no intention to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the allowability of bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) depends on whether the debt was written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts. Since there was a dispute on whether the debt was actually written off in the year under consideration, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.