Loading ITAT cases…
144 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the loss arising from foreign currency fluctuation in hedging contracts is allowable as a deduction, relying on previous decisions. It also ruled that a grant received for procuring a capital asset is a capital receipt and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that ad hoc disallowances made without rejecting the books of account are unsustainable. The addition on account of closing stock valuation was also decided in favour of the assessee based on a prior decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the difference in facilitation charges was partly explained and deleted the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). It also held that the reimbursement of expenses to Nuovo Pignone was not a prior period expense and deleted the disallowance. The classification of interest income as business income was upheld.
The Tribunal found a factual error in the reasons for reopening, as the entire amount received from the broker, including the profit, was reflected in the assessee's accounts and return. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law. It found that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and accepted the assessee's Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claim, and the Pr. CIT's revision was based on suspicion without pointing out a specific error.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 43B, holding it not applicable. Ad-hoc disallowances for unsubstantiated expenses were upheld due to the assessee's failure to produce evidence. The claim for deduction of education cess was allowed, following High Court precedents. The addition of notional interest was deleted, as notional interest cannot be taxed.
The Tribunal held that page 76 of the survey report, which detailed a large portion of the excess stock, was unreliable due to inconsistencies in handwriting and preparation. However, it disagreed with the CIT(A)'s complete discard of the survey report and resorted to estimation.
The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order under Section 144 without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction is bad in law. The assessment order was quashed on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order passed under Section 263 was bad in law. It found that the Assessing Officer had made a plausible assessment, supported by judicial decisions, and that the revisionary order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the difference in facilitation charges was partly explained and deleted the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). It also held that the reimbursement of expenses to Nuovo Pignone was not a prior period expense and deleted the disallowance. The classification of interest income as business income was upheld.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 43B, holding it not applicable. Ad-hoc disallowances for unsubstantiated expenses were upheld due to the assessee's failure to produce evidence. The claim for deduction of education cess was allowed, following High Court precedents. The addition of notional interest was deleted, as notional interest cannot be taxed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the exercise of revisionary power under Section 263 by the Pr. Commissioner was bad in law. The Assessing Officer in the second round had followed all instructions and conducted a proper inquiry, taking a possible view.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the entire assessment was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances of meeting and incentive expenses were not sustainable as the AO did not point out any defects in the books of account or vouchers. The AO's general observations were insufficient to disallow the claims.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the sale of investment in unquoted shares to the Assessing Officer for verification. If the sale proceeds are found to be from investments whose source was accepted as income in AY 2008-09, they cannot be treated as income again for the current year to avoid double addition.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue's appeal was consequently dismissed as deemed to have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the entire assessment was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.
The tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider all evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, without any fresh material. The Tribunal also noted that the reopening was beyond four years and lacked any allegation of non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and a Form 3 was issued by the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee's director to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without a proper opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(Appeals) order also lacked the required reasoning.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee then withdrew the appeal as they had received the required relief from the tax imposed in the protective assessment order.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the scheme's certificate.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that brought forward depreciation can be set off against income from other sources. This followed established judicial precedents.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 was issued by the department. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.