Loading ITAT cases…
265 tribunal orders from the Indore bench in 2017.
Showing 40 of 265 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that the AO ought to have verified the assessee's claim regarding the retracted surrender. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly determined that a substantial part of the blasting expenses was for material, not labour, and thus not subject to TDS. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the diesel expenses, finding no contrary evidence from the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO had not disputed the identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of the share subscribers. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the revenue to examine the source of investment in the hands of the subscribers.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the capital asset occurred on May 31, 2007, in FY 2007-08, relevant to AY 2008-09, based on the agreement to sell, payment of consideration, and transfer of possession. Therefore, reopening the assessment for AY 2009-10 was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Filing an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just submission.
The Tribunal held that mere filing of an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective prosecution. Given the assessees' conduct, the appeals were deemed not pursued.
The Tribunal held that mere filing of an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective prosecution. Given the assessees' conduct, the appeals were deemed not pursued.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Filing an appeal requires effective prosecution, not just submission.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the cash shortage and bogus liabilities, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning justified. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the partial relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the issue is debatable and the assessee has made a full and true disclosure of facts. The mere reclassification of loss from business to speculative by the AO, without concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the cash shortage and bogus liabilities, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning justified. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the partial relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is applicable only when there is exempt income earned. Since the investment was strategically made to earn professional income and no exempt income was received, the disallowance of interest expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. Since the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. Since the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. Since the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to provide another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. Since the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to provide another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) is a fundamental concept of natural justice. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.