Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned and directed the AO to examine necessary expenditure. Regarding depreciation on non-compete fee, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation on one component based on earlier ITAT decisions, while rejecting the other based on High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that communication charges excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10A. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court's affirmation of the High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmation letters from donors and the builder, and bank statements showing encashment of deposits. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' orders to be perverse and against the facts.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. It also directed that expenditure not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) should be considered under Section 35(1). The claim under Section 10B was allowed subject to the outcome of pending High Court proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance under Rule 8D(iii) was restricted to the amount of dividend earned.
The Tribunal acknowledged a difference of opinion among benches regarding the profit estimation percentage for liquor traders. Following a recent ITAT decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the income at 3% of the cost of sales.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. This decision followed the precedent set by the Delhi High Court.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the addition was perverse, as it ignored the findings in the remand reports. Consequently, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged a difference of opinion among its benches regarding the profit estimation percentage. Following a recent ITAT decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the income at 3% of the cost of sales.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. This decision was based on High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. This decision was based on High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow the principles of natural justice by not communicating the remand report to the assessee for comments. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) and the AO were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was wrong in disallowing the expenditure without proper inquiry into the assessee's explanation of data entry errors. However, due to insufficient evidence provided by the assessee, the Tribunal directed the income to be estimated at 5% of gross receipts.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier. The appeal was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication with the new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. This decision was based on High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. This decision was based on High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that TUDA's eligibility for exemption under Section 10(46) depends on a separate notification from the CBDT, and the pending High Court case regarding Section 12AA registration does not directly affect the current assessment proceedings. The AO is directed to grant the benefit if and when the CBDT issues the notification.