Loading ITAT cases…
123 orders · Page 3 of 3
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not consider the company's liquidation and made an independent application of mind. The Tribunal held that shifting liability between the individual and the company was a tax evasion device and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF and ESIC is paid before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x). The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee showing their name was not in the shareholders list as of a particular date. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of this new evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not make a factual finding on whether the return was filed. The Tribunal considered the return filed on 13.12.2011 as potentially relevant evidence.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue was given liberty to file a miscellaneous application if the subject matter fell under exceptions in another circular.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC's ex-parte order lacked cogent reasons and was dismissed for non-prosecution. To provide a fair opportunity, the issue was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision, with a final chance for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allocate only the net corporate expenditure (after considering income) amongst all units based on turnover. The disallowance of excess deduction is to be calculated accordingly.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed agricultural income, the undisputed ownership of agricultural land warranted some allowance. Therefore, a partial allowance was granted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed agricultural income, the undisputed ownership of agricultural land warranted some allowance. Therefore, a partial allowance was granted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the claimed agricultural income, the undisputed ownership of agricultural land warranted some allowance. Therefore, a partial allowance was granted.
The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). For the 80HHC deduction, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the Revenue and applies to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this appeal is below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal is not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that estimating the income at 5% of gross receipts would meet the ends of justice, considering the nature of the business and market conditions. The addition for 'other income' in AY 2012-13 was directed to be verified as business receipt or added separately.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not clearly established the direct nexus between the income earned and the expenditure incurred. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of this nexus.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not clearly established the direct nexus between the income earned and the expenditure incurred. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of this nexus.
The Tribunal held that co-ordinate benches consistently view that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) can be made if employee contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return. Amendments by Finance Act, 2021 were held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to explain the increase in sundry creditors and that Section 68 applies to such unexplained credits. Regarding TDS, the Tribunal held that the deemed deduction applies only in the year the payee files their return, not the relevant previous year.
The Tribunal held that estimating the income at 5% of gross receipts would meet the ends of justice, considering the nature of the business and market conditions. The addition for 'other income' in AY 2012-13 was directed to be verified as business receipt or added separately.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not want to press the grounds of appeal and the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue is bound by the resolution plan accepted by the NCLT, and no creditor can claim anything beyond what is provided in the plan. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10 was partly allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue is bound by the resolution plan accepted by the NCLT, and no creditor can claim anything beyond what is provided in the plan. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10 was partly allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.