Loading ITAT cases…
353 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the allocation of depreciation from the non-eligible unit to the eligible unit. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by issuing a notice under Section 148 was bad in law as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts and the reopening was based on a change of opinion. The notice under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the scholarship expenses by following its own prior decisions for earlier assessment years where similar claims were allowed. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow TDS credit and foreign tax relief under Section 90.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the allocation of depreciation from the non-eligible unit to the eligible unit. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable because the company's board was superseded upon the appointment of an IRP. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile if the committee of creditors decided to pursue the matter.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal and cross-objection. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable because the company's board was superseded upon the appointment of an IRP. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile if the committee of creditors decided to pursue the matter.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal and cross-objection. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the primary objection was the assessee's failure to conclusively prove the land's distance from the municipality. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of the land's geographical location.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar for an institution registered under section 12A to claim benefits under sections 11 & 12, even if section 10(23C) is applicable. The Tribunal also held that hostel receipts are part of educational activities and cannot be segregated.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable because the company's board was superseded upon the appointment of an IRP. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile if the committee of creditors decided to pursue the matter.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for interest deduction. For cash withdrawals, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of utilization. Depreciation on leased property and building maintenance expenses were allowed partly or remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that errors in fringe benefit computation deserve rectification after due verification, regardless of the return being filed online. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification and rectification.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, following a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment of the plot, not the date of registration of the sale deed, is relevant for computing the holding period. Therefore, the capital gain should be treated as long-term capital gain.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the AO's reasons to believe were based on incorrect facts and a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal also noted that the AO made a protective addition, indicating uncertainty about the income belonging to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have granted more time to the assessee to furnish the required details. The appeal is therefore restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This followed a previous decision where the Tribunal had restored similar issues for earlier assessment years to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and therefore, quashed the assessment order. Following its own precedent for a prior assessment year, the Tribunal found the assessment to be legally invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. Furthermore, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the IT Act do not, by themselves, constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing substantial documentary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. Furthermore, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act do not, by themselves, constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The disallowance was deleted as the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were for accessing its database, not for the use of or right to use any copyright. Therefore, the payments did not qualify as 'Royalty' under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were initiated without any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the dispute is not settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that for Section 263 to apply, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since the assessee had substantial brought forward losses, reclassifying day trading losses as speculative would not result in any revenue loss, thus failing the 'prejudicial to revenue' condition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the sustained additions. The assessee failed to substantiate the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case and decide the matter on merit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be reasoned and supported by judicial precedent. The disallowance of interest expenditure was confirmed as the borrowed funds were not used for the assessee's business operations.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to give the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing them to give the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate their case. The assessee was instructed to appear and present evidence without adjournment.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid all dues. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without affording an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that a wrong interpretation of a section, especially when based on a bonafide belief and supported by certificates, does not amount to willful furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence as the AO failed to respond to remand reports. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the assets were put to use, evidenced by production, sales, and statutory records.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that if Provident Fund and ESI contributions are remitted before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the claim of TDS and self-assessment tax, directing the AO to examine and allow the claim if found in order. The Tribunal also allowed the additional ground for deduction of education cess, following previous decisions, and directed the AO to allow its deduction.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. This decision was based on the binding precedents of the Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be considered on merits by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to condone any delay in filing the electronic appeal and decide the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order under Section 147 cannot be sustained as the original assessment was quashed and the reopening was based on the same grounds. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in similar cases.