Loading ITAT cases…
180 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously restored similar interconnected appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the instant appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since Form-3 under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme was issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme had been issued, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following its previous order in related appeals, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to determine if the land constituted a capital asset and verify sale dates.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and change of counsel as reasonable causes. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeal after the quantum appeal is disposed of on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made a new disallowance not arising from the original assessment order. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure made by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. The Tribunal found that the MAT credit calculation should consider surcharge and cess, aligning with the ITR-6 format.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding commission payment disallowance for earlier assessment years was decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench. Following the rule of consistency, the Tribunal deleted the impugned commission disallowance.
The Tribunal, following its previous order in related appeals, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to determine if the land constituted a capital asset and verify sale dates.
The Tribunal, following its previous order in related appeals, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to determine if the land constituted a capital asset and verify sale dates.
The Tribunal held that disallowing business expediency is not sustainable. However, since the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the expenses being wholly and exclusively for business purposes, a lump sum disallowance of 30% of the impugned expenditure was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that while additions might be justified for assessment, the evidence was not conclusive enough to levy penalty under Section 271AAA. The penalty was deemed inappropriate without a categorical finding of undisclosed income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on marketing expenses and did not properly write off bad debts from the debtors' ledger. Reliance on the Supreme Court judgment was deemed inapplicable.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16, which held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D applies only in relation to an assessee's exempt income. Since there was no dividend income, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and verified the documents produced by the assessee, including those related to agricultural income, chit bids, and loans. The PCIT's order to set aside the assessment without examining the evidence was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be re-examined by the AO. The AO was to be given an opportunity to review the documents presented to the CIT(A) before a final decision was made.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted an affidavit from the Society's President supporting his claim. However, the CIT(A) had not adequately verified this. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration and verification of the assessee's contentions.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the appeals afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application and remanded all three appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to follow the decision of the Hon'ble High Court once it was passed in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their Vivad Se Viswas applications were rejected.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application and remanded all three appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to follow the decision of the Hon'ble High Court once it was passed in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their Vivad Se Viswas applications were rejected.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their Vivad Se Viswas applications were rejected.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, but the assessee failed to appear. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, with a warning to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application and remanded all three appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to follow the decision of the Hon'ble High Court once it was passed in the assessee's own case.