Loading ITAT cases…
470 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee, as a recognized provident fund, is eligible for exemption under Section 10(25)(ii) on all income received on behalf of the fund. The various interest incomes were therefore not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on that ground. For book profit computation under Section 115JB, disallowances under Rule 8D are not permissible, but expenses for exempt income must be considered.
The Tribunal held that disallowance could only be made on the non-business advance of Rs. 17,40,000/-. It directed the AO to set off the interest income earned by the assessee before computing the proportionate disallowance.
The Tribunal held that VAT paid on the sale of capital goods is a sales tax liability and not a penalty or tax for infringement of law. It reversed the lower authorities' orders, allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee, as a tenant, to modify rented premises to suit its business requirements is revenue expenditure and allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of disallowance by the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by directors who no longer had the authority to represent the companies. The appeals should have been filed by the IRP or liquidator with proper approvals.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 applies to sums credited in the books of accounts in the relevant year. Since all the loans in question were received in earlier years and not credited in the current year, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and decided to consign the appeal to records. The appeal is treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it can be reinstituted if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective addition. It found that the Rs. 12 crore surrender was not specifically identified and that the enhanced income settled in the group company covered this amount, making the addition redundant.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by directors who no longer had the authority to represent the companies. The appeals should have been filed by the IRP or liquidator with proper approvals.
The Tribunal held that since the addition made under Section 68 was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration by a coordinate bench, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed until the income determination is finalized. Therefore, the penalty does not survive.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by directors who no longer had the authority to represent the companies. The appeals should have been filed by the IRP or liquidator with proper approvals.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the VSV scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.