Loading ITAT cases…
924 orders · Page 18 of 19
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to furnish evidence.
The Tribunal held that the plot was purchased much before the borrowings were taken. Therefore, no borrowed funds were utilized for the cost of the plot, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, with retrospective effect, mandated the dismissal of appeals where the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in filing the returns, as it was dependent on information from third parties and internal circumstances. Since the tax was deducted and deposited on time, and the Revenue suffered no loss, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the existence of PE and taxability of income as not pressed. However, it allowed grounds concerning the calculation of tax payable and interest under sections 234D, restoring these issues to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. The Senior Departmental Representative did not press the appeals.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) cannot be charged if auditor's certificates are produced. It also ruled that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable due to a bonafide belief that TDS was not required prior to a specific High Court order.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to duty drawback as not pressed. For common expenses, the tribunal noted that the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's revised working and directed the AO to recompute, making the ground infructuous. Regarding Section 14A, the tribunal followed a previous ITAT decision and restricted the disallowance to the amount offered by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had already decided the issue in favor of the assessee, and the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the assessee on a similar issue, the revision order by the CIT(E) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while payments to related parties are not inherently disallowed, the assessee must prove the actual rendering of services and their necessity for business. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that the AO must record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, and mechanical application is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that if renting properties is a main object of the assessee company as per its Memorandum of Association, then rental income should be treated as business income. The CIT failed to consider the assessee's explanation and supporting evidence before revising the assessment.
The Tribunal held that if renting properties is a main object of the assessee company as per its Memorandum of Association, then rental income should be treated as business income. The CIT failed to consider the assessee's explanation and supporting evidence before revising the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal observed that the mere absence of business activity does not necessarily mean no expenditure was incurred, especially if books of account are maintained. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification of the expenditure.
The Tribunal held that there was a direct nexus between the interest expenditure and the interest income earned, as the loan was taken for the purpose of investment which resulted in the interest income. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to net the interest received against the interest expenditure.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, stating that the assessment had already been framed after the case was set aside. The Tribunal then proceeded to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal found that the application of Section 44AD and the 8% profit rate by the authorities below was not proper, especially given the volume of receipts and audit reports. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found infirmities in the TPO's determination of the ALP for business support services, technical support services, and royalty payments. It noted inconsistencies with previous years' treatment and issues with the aggregation approach and comparable selection. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the TPO/AO for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 201(1A) cannot be charged if auditor's certificates are produced. It also ruled that penalty under Section 271C is not leviable due to a bonafide belief that TDS was not required prior to a specific High Court order.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing previous judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that while payments to related parties are not inherently disallowed, the assessee must prove the actual rendering of services and their necessity for business. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal ruled that the AO must record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D, and mechanical application is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was tangible material with the AO indicating escapement of income. The assessee's failure to file a return or cooperate with the reassessment proceedings weakened their grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee trust was in its initial stage of formation and had already been granted registration under Section 12AA, the CIT(E) was not justified in refusing approval under Section 80G(5) solely on the grounds of not carrying out activities or not producing accounts at that stage.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.