Loading ITAT cases…
107 tribunal orders from the Guwahati bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 107 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's past net profit rates and the fact that the AO's estimate of 50% was excessive, directed the AO to estimate the net profit at 25%. This provided partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the alleged long-term capital gains were earned from penny stock companies, making the transactions bogus and not qualifying for exemption. The findings of the CIT(A) were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the alleged long-term capital gains were earned from penny stock companies, making the transactions bogus and not qualifying for exemption. The findings of the CIT(A) were confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A and the disallowance of interest on car loan. However, the issue regarding ITDS credit was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowance if found correct.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its onus by providing bank statements and an affidavit denying the payments. The Revenue failed to provide any evidence, such as the creditors' bank statements, to disprove the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of estimating profits was within the scope of limited scrutiny. However, it found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the net profit rate and directed the AO to estimate it at 7.5% instead of 8%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition, stating that the transaction was managed and staged, and the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal restored the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised return corrected mistakes, and the LIC maturity amount was not taxable. Since the assessee explained and corrected figures before assessment completion, it was not a case for penalty.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the deduction under Section 80G and the allowability of foreign travel expenses for the Managing Director's wife. The tribunal also dismissed the revenue's additional grounds and the assessee's cross-objection.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that due to the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal or provide any details at any stage, it was impossible to determine the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the appeal had to be dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect of the deletion by the CIT(Appeals) was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 17 of 2019.
The Tribunal held that while a revised return substitutes the original return, the non-issuance of a fresh notice under section 143(2) on the revised return was an irregularity, not an illegality. The assessment order was set aside and restored to the AO for re-determination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal outright. Instead of dismissing, the CIT(Appeals) should have directed the assessee to amend the grounds of appeal if there were procedural irregularities.
The Tribunal held that excise duty exemption, being a capital receipt, is not chargeable to tax under normal provisions and should be excluded from book profit computation under Section 115JB. Consequently, interest under Section 244A needs recomputation.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and documents. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to defend their case before the AO on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view of treating LPS on a cash basis was permissible and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the undisclosed turnover was established, the 8% net profit rate was excessive. It reduced the net profit rate to 4% on the undisclosed turnover. Additions for interest income and unexplained investment were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's orders extinguishing the Income Tax Department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for issues allowed by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view of treating LPS on a cash basis was permissible and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's orders extinguishing the Income Tax Department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the NCLT's order extinguishing the tax department's claims. However, liberty was granted to file applications for recalling issues if any claims were allowed or admitted by the NCLT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of converting liquid oxygen to gaseous form and processing natural gas amounted to 'production' as per the broader connotation of the term. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80IC/80IE.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of converting liquid oxygen to gaseous form and processing natural gas amounted to 'production' as per the broader connotation of the term. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80IC/80IE.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of converting liquid oxygen to gaseous form and processing natural gas amounted to 'production' as per the broader connotation of the term. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80IC/80IE.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of converting liquid oxygen to gaseous oxygen and processing natural gas amounted to 'production' as per the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for deductions under Sections 80IC and 80IE.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated, as the two limbs carry different meanings. A vague notice without specifying the charge is bad in law and insufficient to impose a penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of converting liquid oxygen to gaseous form and processing natural gas amounted to 'production' as per the broader connotation of the term. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80IC/80IE.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing Form 10 was subsequently condoned by the CIT(Exemption) himself through a separate order. Therefore, the revisionary order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on outstanding forex payables are allowable if provided in the books to show a true and fair financial picture, as per Accounting Standard (AS)-11. The disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss claimed by the assessee, as per Accounting Standard (AS)-11, is allowable as it provides a true and fair picture of financial statements. The disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.