Loading ITAT cases…
167 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench in 2019.
Showing 40 of 167 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
For AY 2005-06, the tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on agency. For AY 2007-08, the appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding the expenses genuine and TDS non-applicable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
For AY 2005-06, the tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on agency. For AY 2007-08, the appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding the expenses genuine and TDS non-applicable.
For AY 2005-06, the tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for a speaking order on agency. For AY 2007-08, the appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect. For AY 2008-09, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding the expenses genuine and TDS non-applicable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not adequately explain the share application money and premium received, and failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of investors. The appeals were decided based on common issues and facts across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the issues in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the issues in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate the issues in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the impact of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the issues in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the issues in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication. This was to consider the issues in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. NRA Iron & Steels Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must be clear about the specific limb under which penalty is imposable, as 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' are distinct. The charge in this case was vague, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal found that detailed verification of facts was required to determine if the land was agricultural, if activities were performed, and if it was a business dealing. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the prosecution launched for delayed filing of return was unrelated to the merits of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal agreed that the CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was correct as disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. It directed the Assessing Officer to apply the disallowance rate as per the Bombay High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT is barred from assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 merely to take a different view from the Assessing Officer when a possible view was already taken. The revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order was quashed, the assessment based on it lacked legal basis and any consequent additions were deleted. Regarding penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s relief under Section 273B, finding reasonable cause for delayed return filing.
The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order was quashed, the assessment based on it lacked legal basis and any consequent additions were deleted. Regarding penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s relief under Section 273B, finding reasonable cause for delayed return filing.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the fact that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the enhanced monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the Tribunal.