Loading ITAT cases…
469 orders · Page 5 of 10
The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal clarified the correct appeal number and allowed the assessee's request to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, given their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed without proper consideration of facts. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after verifying the demand settlement.
The Tribunal held that interest received by land owners on enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the TDS provisions of Section 194A were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that interest received by land owners on enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the TDS provisions of Section 194A were not attracted.
The Tribunal held that interest received by land owners on enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not income from other sources under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the TDS provisions of Section 194A were not attracted.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee is directed to present their case with evidence, and the CIT(A) is to provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT found that the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal ex-parte was an error. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence and appear before the appellate authorities. The appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's negligence and lack of compliance.
The Tribunal held that since the additions in the impugned assessment order were identical to those in the original assessment order, and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar additions in the assessee's own case, the impugned additions should also be deleted. The refund of excise duty was held to be a capital receipt not includible in total income.
The Tribunal held that since the additions in the impugned assessment order were identical to those in the original assessment order, and the Tribunal had previously deleted similar additions in the assessee's own case, the impugned additions should also be deleted. The refund of excise duty was held to be a capital receipt not includible in total income.
The Tribunal held that the issue is well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, agreeing that the assessee did not intentionally conceal income as the DSIR certificate was received after filing the return and the assessment order was passed before the certificate was issued.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the amount received was not a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal found that the transaction was a business transaction for acquiring rights and there was no finding that the advances were routed back for the benefit of SCIL's shareholders.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 6,57,79,752/- as unexplained cash credit, noting the assessee's consistent failure to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loans. The disallowance of interest expenses was also sustained.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions towards PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance made by the AO is not sustainable. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees, citing decisions of various High Courts. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by acting as an Assessing Officer and examining the tax liability on corpus donations, which was beyond the scope of a 12AA application. The Tribunal also noted that the objects and activities of the society were found to be genuine and in sync with the Act's provisions.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied sufficient opportunities by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the issue is now well-settled in favor of the assessees based on High Court decisions. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, where the original assessment was completed under section 143(3), are invalid if there is no allegation of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was not sustainable as the points raised were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal agreed that completed assessments, which had attained finality and were not abated, could only be interfered with if incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was not sustainable as the points raised were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal agreed that completed assessments, which had attained finality and were not abated, could only be interfered with if incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions or disallowances in proceedings under section 153A must be based on incriminating or seized material found during the search. Since the additions/disallowances were not based on such material, they were deleted.