Loading ITAT cases…
717 orders · Page 4 of 15
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits for filing appeals set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sundry creditors and security deposits was justified based on evidence and remand reports. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue of commission and brokerage expenses back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits for filing appeals set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report used by the AO was for bank loan purposes and not indicative of the actual sale consideration. It also found that the adjoining property's sale deed was not conclusive for determining the assessee's property valuation.
The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for all three assessment years for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals for two assessment years were also partly allowed, while one was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals for all three assessment years for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals for two assessment years were also partly allowed, while one was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits for filing appeals set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the contract was extended and subsequently cancelled due to market conditions, with RBI approval for the payment. Therefore, the washout charges were allowed as a deductible expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,48,51,840/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed sales, as the Forest Department's report confirmed the stock was destroyed and had nil value. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, allowing the assessee's appeal on that ground. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for the same year was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conclusively prove the sham nature of transactions and backdating without proper audits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report used by the AO was for bank loan purposes and not indicative of the actual sale consideration. It also found that the adjoining property's sale deed was not conclusive for determining the assessee's property valuation.
The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in faulting the lower authorities but granted a final opportunity to the assessee to produce the commission recipients before the Assessing Officer for verification. This decision was made considering the assessee's willingness to comply and the need to determine the just tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of sale for capital gains and that the diamond jewellery was part of the overall jewellery found, not a separate unexplained investment. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustained.
The Tribunal noted that documents were filed for the first time before the CIT(A) without a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the claim under Section 54F was not thoroughly verified. The issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits for filing appeals set by CBDT circulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning was stereotypical and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. It found that the expenditure was incurred in the relevant financial year and that the assessee did not incur losses in the prior year to be carried forward. Consequently, most additions were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, finding that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the expenses incurred by the employees. The fixed nature of the reimbursement amounts for all employees suggested they were in the nature of allowances rather than actual reimbursements.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's order. It confirmed the addition for sales commission, but directed that cost sharing charges and service charges should be treated as operating costs and not separately benchmarked. The issue of royalty payment was remanded back to the AO/TPO for fresh benchmarking.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for ICDs/CFS as it was covered by a Supreme Court decision in the assessee's own case. The issue of advance lease rent was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal regarding rolling stock and depreciation on retired/unregistered assets was dismissed, following earlier favorable decisions for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 201(3) of the Act prevailing at the relevant time. The subsequent amendment extending the limitation period was not applicable retrospectively to revive time-barred proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) and the disallowances for donations and conveyance expenses were to be remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The disallowance for interest on TDS was upheld, and the disallowance for vehicle depreciation was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest liability under Section 201(1A) to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO needs to ascertain if Noida Authority has paid the tax and interest corresponding to the lease rental paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed based on the CBDT's instructions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not properly appreciating the Board Resolutions and audited financials presented by the assessee to prove the integrated nature of the project. This was considered a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on borrowings was not justified as the funds were advanced as a measure of commercial expediency and the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal also found that the ad-hoc disallowance on vehicle expenses was not sustainable without specific defects being pointed out.
The tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest on the delayed refund, as the department had withheld the amount. It also held that the diminution in the value of fertilizer bonds constituted a revenue loss allowable to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO had repeated the original assessment order due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the AO's allowance of netting in subsequent years and the previous remand, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for a final opportunity to substantiate the nexus between FDRs and the business.
The tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest on the delayed refund, as the department had withheld the amount. It also held that the diminution in the value of fertilizer bonds constituted a revenue loss allowable to the assessee.