Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal held that companies registered under the Sikkim Companies Act, 1961, were not considered 'companies' under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the impugned assessment years and were to be treated as AOPs. Therefore, the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reassessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax evaded. The CIT(A) had already found the case fit for penalty but reduced it from 300% to 100%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had made a lucid analysis and reasonably exercised discretion in restricting the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The Tribunal found no reason to enhance the penalty or interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) had found that while concealment was established, the AO failed to justify the imposition of penalty at the maximum rate of 300%.
The Tribunal held that the capital gain should be treated as long-term capital gain based on the tripartite agreement date. It also corrected the indexed cost of acquisition based on the admitted actual cost.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the details of discarded and written-off assets and the impact on the block of assets. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to correct the typographical errors in the original order. The corrected order reflects the accurate details of the appellant and respondent.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was based on incorrect facts and that the assessment was framed ex parte. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify if the assessee was the proprietor of 'M/s. Kuldevi Investment' based on an affidavit filed by the assessee. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of the bank statements and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication on merit, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and substantial justice over technicalities. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company has been dissolved and its assets liquidated. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the issues of cash deposits and unexplained investment to the AO for fresh examination, noting a potential double addition. The addition of interest income was confirmed as it was not offered to tax.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient. It further held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a proper examination of the assessment records and the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be disallowed under Section 14A and that certain administrative expenses are outside the purview of Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore, the disallowance made by the assessee of Rs. 8,42,213/- was considered sufficient.
The Tribunal held that the assessment in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, rejecting the assessee's argument regarding the non-furnishing of the investigation report and denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal found no force in the assessee's submission on this point. Regarding the addition for estimated commission expenses, the Tribunal found that the AO had rightly estimated the amount, and this ground was rejected. Concerning the addition under Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the exempt income claimed was Rs. 11,984/- (dividend income) and the AO made an addition equivalent to this amount without debited expenditure. The Tribunal considered this addition to be on the higher side and allowed the ground partly, restricting the addition to Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it is bound to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court over coordinate benches of the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the applications were filed within the prescribed time, considering a subsequent extension of the due date by the CBDT. It also relied on a previous decision that allowed registration even if activities commenced before provisional approval.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and a claim for FTC cannot be denied solely for its late submission. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned due to bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company has been dissolved and its assets liquidated. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the applications were filed within the prescribed time, considering a subsequent extension of the due date by the CBDT. It also relied on a previous decision that allowed registration even if activities commenced before provisional approval.
The Tribunal held that the applications were filed within the prescribed time, considering a subsequent extension of the due date by the CBDT. It also relied on a previous decision that allowed registration even if activities commenced before provisional approval.
The Tribunal held that the applications were filed within the prescribed time, considering a subsequent extension of the due date by the CBDT. It also relied on a previous decision that allowed registration even if activities commenced before provisional approval.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company has been dissolved and its assets liquidated. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue have become infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration in light of the new CBDT circular. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and a claim for FTC cannot be denied solely for its late submission. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned due to bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal as withdrawn based only on filing Form 2, without considering the completion of the Vivad Se Vishwas process (which requires tax payment and issuance of Form 5), was not in accordance with the law. Since no tax was paid, the scheme application was deemed rejected.
The tribunal confirmed the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. For Section 14A, the tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt income should be excluded from the calculation and remanded the issue to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and a claim for FTC cannot be denied solely for its late submission. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned due to bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that loss from trading in derivatives on a recognized stock exchange is a business loss, not speculation loss, as per Section 43(5) of the Act. It also directed the Assessing Officer to rectify the double taxation of LIC pension income.
For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify if the assessee was the proprietor of 'M/s. Kuldevi Investment' based on an affidavit filed by the assessee. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of the bank statements and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the applications were filed within the prescribed time, considering a subsequent extension of the due date by the CBDT. It also relied on a previous decision that allowed registration even if activities commenced before provisional approval.
The Tribunal held that the applications were filed within the prescribed time, considering a subsequent extension of the due date by the CBDT. It also relied on a previous decision that allowed registration even if activities commenced before provisional approval.
The Tribunal noted that the share transactions were executed on a registered exchange through a registered broker and supported by documentary evidence. However, due to the non-service of summons on a key entity, the matter was restored to the AO for further verification.