Loading ITAT cases…
924 orders · Page 19 of 19
The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law and illegal. The AO recorded incorrect and non-existent reasons for reopening, as the assessee had filed a return and provided evidence regarding the property's location and sale consideration.
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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.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 upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts and the estimation of profit at 5% by the lower authorities. The assessee's failure to produce crucial evidence, including discrepancies in salary payments and unsubstantiated expenses, justified the action taken.
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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.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 noted that the Revenue's appeal was against the CBDT circular's instructions. The Senior Departmental Representative did not press the appeal in light of the circular.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) was not applicable as there was no cessation of liability. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal found that some expenses were not properly supported by bills and vouchers.
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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.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 Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn or not pressed by the Revenue.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 failed to prove the source of investment in the property. The AO was justified in making the addition as the assessee did not provide any evidence to substantiate the gift or the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which prescribed amortization of infrastructure costs, could not be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the assessee's claim for depreciation was rightly allowed by the CIT(A).
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 earned by the assessee-society from Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd., a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also allowed a claim for deduction of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii), which was initially rejected by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by the assessee-society from Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd., a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal also allowed a claim for deduction of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii), which was initially rejected by the lower authorities.
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 quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C, following its own prior decision in identical appeals for subsequent assessment years. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was consequently deleted.
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. The Senior Departmental Representative did not press the appeals.