Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessment and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte without proper opportunity. Therefore, the case was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made when there is no exempt income earned during the assessment year. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The tribunal noted the Revenue's letter requesting withdrawal of the appeal due to the applicability of an APA. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and supporting documents. It was noted that the assessee had offered net seignerage charges to tax, and bringing the gross amount to tax would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal remitted the issue of interest estimation back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments concerning the sale of intangible assets and reimbursement of expenses, following its own previous decisions. The issue regarding the computation of Section 10A deduction was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the evidence submitted by the assessee and had confirmed the penalty without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of deemed dividend, finding that the conditions of Section 2(22)(e) were met. Regarding the telescoping of investment in land, the Tribunal reiterated the CIT(A)'s direction for the AO to verify if the firm had disclosed the income related to the investment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) cannot reject the application solely on the grounds of not filing P&L accounts for two years, especially when the assessee has fulfilled the conditions under Section 80G(5). The Tribunal found no violation of Section 12A or the conditions for 80G registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the provision for obsolete stock, stating that the obsolescence was not established and the consistency principle did not apply. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IB on insurance claims for raw materials, following favorable High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that since no exempt income was earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This decision was based on High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO for reconsideration and examination of facts, there was no grievance for the Revenue. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO for reconsideration and examination of facts, there was no grievance for the Revenue. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed loans were from close friends and relatives, the necessary details were not provided to the AO or CIT(A). The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's contentions based on confirmation letters without further inquiry.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's financial difficulties and medical reasons. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, relying on its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Section 14A is applicable only when exempt income is actually earned by the assessee. Since no exempt income was earned in the relevant assessment year, no disallowance could be made.