Loading ITAT cases…
79 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that periphery development expenses incurred prior to assessment year 2015-16 are allowable as business expenditure, as the explanation to Section 37(1) is prospective. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty should not be levied as the transactions were genuine and bona fide, and the assessee had a reasonable cause for making the repayment in cash. The object of Section 269T is to prevent unaccounted money, which is not the case here as the parties are identifiable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly rejected the assessee's explanation for cash deposits supported by partnership firm's financial documents. It also found the addition for LIC policy maturity unsupported by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. This was because there was no allegation that the assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and truly, and no tangible material came into the possession of the Assessing Officer after the original assessment.
The Tribunal set aside its own previous order which had given effect to a High Court judgment. The earlier ITAT order, which allowed the assessee's appeals, was restored and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The order also failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance under Section 14A by considering only investments that actually earned dividend income. It allowed the deduction for interest paid on delayed TDS and dismissed the appeal regarding entry tax liability.
The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the difference in the unsecured loan could be treated as a ceased liability as the assessee failed to establish its existence. For the sundry creditors and debtors, the tribunal found that some differences were explained, while others were not.
The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to support the AO's finding of personal use of the car. It reasoned that providing conveyance facility to the Head Mistress, whose salary was found reasonable, is also reasonable and does not constitute a violation of Section 13(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that advanced rent offered to tax in a subsequent year should not be added as undisclosed income in the current year, and interest income from personal accounts of an individual cannot be added to the Estate's income. Disallowance of municipal tax paid was also deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not controverted the evidence provided by the assessee and had failed to grant an opportunity for cross-examination. Both parties agreed to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the case. This was done because the CIT(A) had not considered the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside its own previous order which had given effect to a High Court judgment. The earlier ITAT order, which allowed the assessee's appeals, was restored and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that forex losses on revenue account are deductible under Section 37(1), following Supreme Court and ITAT precedents. However, forex loss on capital account was upheld as a disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had computed the total outstanding tax demand as Nil. The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal to buy peace in litigation. The Revenue raised no objection.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the identity of the loan creditor (the Director) was proven, and he had a current account with the company with a debit balance. The Director was also assessed to tax, satisfying the conditions for identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated based on the TPO's order, which was passed after the final assessment order, were bad in law. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment order passed by the AO.
The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The AO's reasons were vague, based on borrowed satisfaction, and lacked independent application of mind to the material.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- was uncalled for. It noted that the assessee had provided details, including PANs for most players, and that payments were made through banking channels with vouchers. The Tribunal found the disallowance to be without basis.
The Tribunal held that the peak credit method, which deducts gross withdrawals from gross deposits, is the correct approach for determining undisclosed sales. The AO was directed to consider the net amount as undisclosed sales.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for both years was bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind to the information received. The use of identical figures for cash deposits in both years further indicated this lack of application of mind.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for both years was bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind to the information received. The use of identical figures for cash deposits in both years further indicated this lack of application of mind.