Loading ITAT cases…
104 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal restored both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessees to explain any delay.
The Tribunal restored both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessees to explain any delay.
The Tribunal admitted the bank statements of the assessee and her husband as additional evidence. The matter was remitted back to the AO to decide the issue afresh after considering this evidence and providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that restricting the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the extent of dividend-yielding investments is a settled position of law. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal held that restricting the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the extent of dividend-yielding investments is a settled position of law. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance accordingly.
The Tribunal admitted the bank statements of the assessee and her husband as additional evidence. The matter was remitted back to the AO to decide the issue afresh after considering this evidence and providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that if the payees have offered the receipts in their income tax returns, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) may not be applicable. The issue was remitted back to the AO for verification of documentary evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue based on documentary evidence to be filed by the assessee, proving sufficient own surplus funds for the interest-free advances.
The Tribunal admitted the bank statements of the assessee and her husband as additional evidence. The matter was remitted back to the AO to decide the issue afresh after considering this evidence and providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance as it would amount to double addition. The Assessing Officer had already disallowed a larger sum for the same project under a separate head.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the addition was confirmed in principle but directed the AO to ascertain the quantum pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. For AY 2008-09, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to tax effect limitations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance as it would amount to double addition. The Assessing Officer had already disallowed a larger sum for the same project under a separate head.
The Tribunal held that the sale was not a slump sale as specific assets were itemized and excluded from the transfer. Therefore, Section 50B was not applicable, and the addition made by the AO was deleted. The issue of disallowance of expenditure was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on goodwill to the Assessing Officer for verification of an advance pricing agreement. It also directed the Assessing Officer not to include advance tax up to the commencement of business for Section 234C interest. Finally, the Tribunal allowed education cess as an allowable expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the addition was confirmed in principle but directed the AO to ascertain the quantum pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. For AY 2008-09, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to tax effect limitations.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a business expediency for advancing interest-free loans to MPCPL as no JV agreement was ever executed, and no projects were undertaken by the purported JV. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C(1) of the Act, inserting the words 'or assessable', had prospective effect and did not apply retrospectively to the date of agreement in 2005. Therefore, the SRO price assessable on the date of agreement could not be used for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue to withdraw its appeals. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the JV as an agent of the non-resident company. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the Assessing Officer's action was not in line with the ITAT's previous directions and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable in light of the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification that these provisions apply prospectively from April 1, 2021. The disallowances were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a coordinate bench decision. It held that if a partition of property has taken place, capital gains tax is liable in the individual capacity and not in the capacity of HUF.
The assessee requested to withdraw its appeal as it had obtained provisional registration under the new provisions. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a business expediency for advancing interest-free loans to MPCPL as no JV agreement was ever executed, and no projects were undertaken by the purported JV. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C(1) of the Act, inserting the words 'or assessable', had prospective effect and did not apply retrospectively to the date of agreement in 2005. Therefore, the SRO price assessable on the date of agreement could not be used for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that the addition was confirmed in principle but directed the AO to ascertain the quantum pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. For AY 2008-09, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to tax effect limitations.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C(1) of the Act, inserting the words 'or assessable', had prospective effect and did not apply retrospectively to the date of agreement in 2005. Therefore, the SRO price assessable on the date of agreement could not be used for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable in light of the legislative amendments and CBDT clarification that these provisions apply prospectively from April 1, 2021. The disallowances were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a business expediency for advancing interest-free loans to MPCPL as no JV agreement was ever executed, and no projects were undertaken by the purported JV. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld.
The tribunal held that fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to include this power only from that date. For returns filed after this date, the levy is confirmed.
The tribunal held that fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to include this power only from that date. For returns filed after this date, the levy is confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's consequential order had no jurisdiction to ignore a duly passed rectification order in the assessee's favour. The Assessing Officer also lacked jurisdiction to question the correctness of the earlier order on merits or legality.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable. It noted that legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications regarding such payments were prospective, applying only from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a previous decision for preceding assessment years involving similar issues, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of bogus purchases to 8% of the impugned amount.
The Tribunal held that justice would be better served by remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate all issues afresh after providing opportunities for hearing. The CIT(A)'s action of accepting additional evidence without allowing the AO to respond was noted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot be considered an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer files a favorable remand report. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal held that fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to include this power only from that date. For returns filed after this date, the levy is confirmed.
The tribunal held that fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for TDS returns filed prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A was amended to include this power only from that date. For returns filed after this date, the levy is confirmed.
The Tribunal held that justice would be better served by remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate all issues afresh after providing opportunities for hearing. The CIT(A)'s action of accepting additional evidence without allowing the AO to respond was noted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for AY 2012-13 was not sustainable as it was made without incriminating material and was a double addition. For AY 2014-15, the disallowance was deleted based on a co-ordinate bench decision and case law, as the assessee had not derived any exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions was not sustainable due to recent legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications applying prospectively from April 1, 2021. The issue of short credit of TDS was restored to the assessing authority for verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for AY 2012-13 was not sustainable as it was made without incriminating material and was a double addition. For AY 2014-15, the disallowance was deleted based on a co-ordinate bench decision and case law, as the assessee had not derived any exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions was not sustainable due to recent legislative amendments and CBDT clarifications applying prospectively from April 1, 2021. The issue of short credit of TDS was restored to the assessing authority for verification.