Loading ITAT cases…
458 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the assessee's registration. The decision was based on a Ministry of Home Affairs notification declaring the assessee as an unlawful association due to its involvement in criminal and terror cases, and its activities being contrary to its stated objects.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT ought to have given another opportunity to the assessee to explain the issues raised in the show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Pr. CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that it is settled law that a penalty order is liable for quashing if the penalty notice does not specify the default. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating this ground. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for decision.
The Tribunal held that the amortization of lease payments for land at Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The disallowance for Noida land was confirmed. The issue of tax credit for dividend income was to be adjudicated along with the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the amortization of lease payments for land at Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The disallowance for Noida land was confirmed. The issue of tax credit for dividend income was to be adjudicated along with the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the amortization of lease payments for land at Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The disallowance for Noida land was confirmed. The issue of tax credit for dividend income was to be adjudicated along with the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the revenue authorities, disallowing the claim for revenue expenditure. It held that since the expenses were capitalized, the assessee is eligible to claim depreciation on the software.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot change the section under which the addition was made by the Assessing Officer, especially when the conditions for the two sections are different. The addition under Section 69A was deleted as the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain its applicability.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were from business receipts on which presumptive income was offered. Since the assessee did not provide evidence to the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence establishing repayment of Rs. 8,40,000/- out of an advance received for a property sale. Therefore, the source of cash deposits was explained, and the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on fixed deposits kept as security for performance guarantees is taxable as business income and can be set off against project expenses. Therefore, the assessees are entitled to a refund of the TDS.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on fixed deposits, directly connected to the business activity, is taxable as business income. It can be set off against construction costs, and the TDS amount should be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities had relied on past assessment orders without examining the specific contracts for the impugned assessment years. The existence of a PE depends on the terms of the contract and allocation of work.
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities had relied on past assessment orders without examining the specific contracts for the impugned assessment years. The existence of a PE depends on the terms of the contract and allocation of work.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs was inextricably linked to the hotel construction project and should be treated as a capital receipt to be deducted from the project cost. It also directed the AO to consider 1/5th of preliminary expenses as allowable, following prior year's treatment.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to prove the higher transaction value and noted that the seller's assessment accepted the lower sale consideration. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities had relied on past assessment orders without examining the specific contracts for the impugned assessment years. The existence of a PE depends on the terms of the contract and allocation of work.
The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee from Satellite Transmission Services is not taxable in India as royalty. This decision followed consistent rulings by the Tribunal and the Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own cases for preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities had relied on past assessment orders without examining the specific contracts for the impugned assessment years. The existence of a PE depends on the terms of the contract and allocation of work.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue could not provide any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E fees could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not justified.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not justified.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not justified.
The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied for TDS statements filed prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision under Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect from that date. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) generally cannot entertain claims not made in a revised return, as per the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. However, the ITAT has the power to admit such claims. Since the relevant case laws were not presented before the lower authorities, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without jurisdiction due to the officer's compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order was considered a nullity in the eyes of law.