Loading ITAT cases…
649 orders · Page 4 of 13
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular was applicable to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on software and intellectual property had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the ITAT. Regarding legal and professional charges, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided complete details to the AO, and thus no interference was called for.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to 0.5% of assets yielding exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for demerger expenses under Section 35DD. The Revenue's appeal regarding Section 10B deduction was dismissed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and provide a reasoned order, which is a procedural infirmity. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, violating the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on conversion of shares, finding no error. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance of administrative expenses to the amount of exempt income, following a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the issue of estimated gross profit on deemed sales requires reconsideration by the CIT(A) due to lack of detailed factual findings. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of project and construction expenses, finding them to be revenue in nature related to the assessee's business of developing commercial complexes. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, noting that advances had reduced and the assessee had sufficient own funds, with no nexus proven between borrowed funds and interest-free advances.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal ex-parte without going into merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding disallowance under Section 14A, restricting it to 0.5% of assets yielding exempt income. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's claim for demerger expenses under Section 35DD. The Revenue's appeal regarding Section 10B deduction was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity and without going into the merits of the case. The CIT(A) should have provided a reasoned order after hearing both parties.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and providing reasons for the decision. Dismissing appeals for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal emphasized the need for the CIT(A) to decide on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unearned revenue and disallowance of provision for liquidated damages were uncalled for and deserved to be deleted, following earlier decisions of a co-ordinate bench. The addition on account of TP adjustment was also decided in favour of the assessee.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order suffered from infirmity because the Assessing Officer did not record proper satisfaction while initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied for concealment of income, while satisfaction was recorded for furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be partly allowed for statistical purposes, directing the TPO to re-examine the employee cost filter for one company. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the exclusion of certain comparables by the CIT(A).
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeals on merits and provide a reasoned order, which is a procedural infirmity. The tribunal emphasized the requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), which is considered retrospective, applies. Since the payee accounted for the full commission and paid taxes, the disallowance cannot be made.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits and that no material was presented to persuade them to differ from the CIT(A)'s decision. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeals on merits and provide a reasoned order, which is a procedural infirmity. The tribunal emphasized the requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was quashed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeals ex-parte and without a reasoned order, violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine the employee cost for one comparable company and allowed its inclusion if the cost met the criteria. For another comparable, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd., the Tribunal upheld its exclusion due to abnormal profits. Infosys Ltd. was also excluded as a comparable, following the Delhi High Court's decision.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without a reasoned order and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible. This position is well-settled by various High Court decisions.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing sufficient opportunity. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without proper opportunity is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte and without a reasoned order. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and without addressing the merits of the case. The CIT(A)'s order was found to be infirm.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for perquisites, stating the equipment was company-owned and used by an employee. It also deleted additions for cash found and low household withdrawals, considering the assessee's declared income and withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity or considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which are binding on tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the huge capital gains. The share price rise was found to be artificial, and the company's fundamentals did not support it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without going into merits is infirm.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals ex-parte without proper hearing and without going into merits is infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals ex-parte without considering merits is an infirmity.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is infirm.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeals ex-parte and without providing a reasoned order. The CIT(A) has a duty to decide appeals after hearing parties and stating reasons, not dismiss them for non-prosecution without considering merits.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity and without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was found to be infirm.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering merits is an infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is bound to decide appeals after hearing parties and providing reasons. Dismissing appeals ex-parte without considering merits or providing sufficient opportunity is an infirmity.