Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. Since the appeals were filed contrary to the circular's monetary limits, they were dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and did not demonstrate an independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that an addition solely based on a statement made during a survey, without corroborating incriminating material, is bad in law. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the 'initial assessment year' for claiming deduction under Section 80-IE was conclusively determined as AY 2008-09 in previous appeals. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction for AY 2014-15, and the interest income earned from banks was also allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined the specific grant-in-aid scheme clauses. Both parties agreed to restore the issue to the AO for a scheme-wise analysis of the interest income.
The Tribunal held that in cases of non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A/153C can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the share transactions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the primary facts were available to the AO during the original assessment and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, reopening after four years was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide material to prove the differential sums were paid over and above the actual cost of properties. It also noted that the Assessing Officer did not summon concerned parties to rebut the assessee's explanation regarding commission income.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record the necessary satisfaction as prescribed by law. This failure rendered the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record the necessary satisfaction as prescribed by law. This failure rendered the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The Tribunal relied on the creditor's affidavit, VAT returns, sale deed, and the fact that the loan was previously accepted in earlier assessments.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record the necessary satisfaction as prescribed by law. This failure rendered the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record the necessary satisfaction as prescribed by law. This failure rendered the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record the necessary satisfaction as prescribed by law. This failure rendered the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record the necessary satisfaction as prescribed by law. This failure rendered the assessment orders bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that belated PF payments are allowable if paid before the due date of filing the return. It also agreed that Section 14A disallowance was not applicable as the state government bore the expenses, and prior period expenditure disallowance was not attracted under specific High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that in cases of non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A/153C can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were not sustainable. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the share transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already declared the nature of income in her return. The addition made by the AO was considered an instance of double addition.