Loading ITAT cases…
12 orders · Page 1 of 1
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.
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 restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the disposal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority under Section 200A to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, for periods before this date, such levies were deleted.
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 Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.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 prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority under Section 200A to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, for periods before this date, such levies were deleted.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority under Section 200A to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, for periods before this date, such levies were deleted.
The Tribunal held that prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority under Section 200A to levy fees under Section 234E. Therefore, for periods before this date, such levies were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowing deduction under Section 80-IE for excise duty refund and sales tax remission was already decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench in their own case for preceding assessment years. The revenue failed to provide any contrary binding precedent.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding unexplained expenditure and disallowance for making charges, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The issue of undisclosed stock was remanded for fresh adjudication. The disallowance for advertisement expenses was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly applied Section 10(26) based on the High Court's decision, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence to disprove the exemption for the income and capital introduced. The assessee's cross-objections regarding jurisdiction and opportunity were rejected.