Loading ITAT cases…
280 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file necessary evidence to support their claims.
The Tribunal found that the issue involved additions under Section 68 and that the Assessing Officer could not conduct proceedings under Section 131. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the pending rectification application. The CIT(A) should have kept the appeal pending until the rectification application was disposed of.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed orders in violation of natural justice, either by issuing orders before the hearing date or by ignoring valid adjournment requests. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed orders in violation of natural justice, either by issuing orders before the hearing date or by ignoring valid adjournment requests. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of the substantive assessment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The addition on account of commission income was also remitted back. However, an addition related to the purchase of land and building was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made on a protective basis without awaiting the outcome of the substantive assessment. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The addition on account of commission income was also remitted back. However, an addition related to the purchase of land and building was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide specific evidence to rebut the correctness of the assessee's voluminous details regarding share transactions. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions to allow the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the broken period interest paid on purchase of securities should be treated as revenue expenditure, aligning with the principle of matching accounting and previous tribunal and High Court decisions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, allowing deductions under Section 80HHC and Section 35D. It also allowed set-off of losses of amalgamated companies and EOU losses, and dismissed grounds related to depreciation disallowance and corporate building depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issue on merits, especially in the appeal against the revised assessment. It found that the disallowance of rebate/discount was ad-hoc and made without rejecting books of accounts or bringing evidence on record, thus deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the LTCG claim based on surrounding circumstances without legal evidence. The Tribunal found the transactions to be bonafide and genuine, supported by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issue on merits, especially in the appeal against the revised assessment. It found that the disallowance of rebate/discount was ad-hoc and made without rejecting books of accounts or bringing evidence on record, thus deleting the disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the revised return based on the audited balance sheet. However, the original return contained erroneous figures. To ascertain the truth, the appeal was remanded to the AO for cross-verification.
The Tribunal deleted a portion of the disallowance related to capitalized expenses, confirmed another portion where the assessee did not press the appeal, and dismissed the revenue's appeals on other grounds where the CIT(A)'s findings were not controverted.
The Tribunal deleted a portion of the disallowance related to capitalized expenses, confirmed another portion where the assessee did not press the appeal, and dismissed the revenue's appeals on other grounds where the CIT(A)'s findings were not controverted.
The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 2008-09 was not maintainable as it was against a non-existent assessment order. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present comparable data, and thus set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed orders in violation of natural justice, either by issuing orders before the hearing date or by ignoring valid adjournment requests. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the broken period interest paid on purchase of securities should be treated as revenue expenditure, aligning with the principle of matching accounting and previous tribunal and High Court decisions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The assessee was permitted to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning, which favors the assessee when there are conflicting views, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal found that notices were sent to the old address and were likely not served. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued a notice but the assessee did not comply, and there was also no compliance in proceedings under Section 131. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the electricity payments was not in doubt. Considering the circumstances and the principle of business expediency, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted details of carry forward business loss and depreciation to the Assessing Officer, which were not considered before the assessment was completed. The CIT(A) also did not consider these details. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that there was a sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to notices being sent to an incorrect address. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, following the CBDT Circular, the appeal was dismissed due to the low tax effect.