Loading ITAT cases…
274 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that mere registration of the vehicle in the director's name does not disentitle the assessee from claiming depreciation, especially when the vehicle was used exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions supporting the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court admitted a substantial question of law on the quantum issue, the matter was debatable. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deducting interest on a prior refund from an enhanced refund was debatable. Therefore, it could not be rectified under Section 154 as it was not a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the issue rectified was debatable, as it had been decided by a co-ordinate bench and subsequently upheld by the High Court. Therefore, it could not be considered a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the investment was made from own funds and no expenses were claimed. It also allowed the claim for prior period expenses. The interest income on short-term deposits abroad was held to be business income, following a previous tribunal decision.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the investment was made from own funds and no expenses were claimed. It also allowed the claim for prior period expenses. The interest income on short-term deposits abroad was held to be business income, following a previous tribunal decision.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the accrual of commission and depreciation on computer peripherals.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the accrual of commission and depreciation on computer peripherals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the CBDT circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for departmental appeals to the Tribunal. The circular was also applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the 4.15% net profit rate was accepted by the department in a prior assessment year and the assessee provided no plausible reasoning for its claim.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of bank guarantee charges was not covered under Section 194C as it was a reimbursement of actual expenditure. It also found that the payment for technical services was correctly taxed under Section 194C, not Section 194J. Therefore, the revision proceedings were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the Income Tax Authorities. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not maintainable.