Loading ITAT cases…
47 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was liable to be quashed due to a legal deficiency in not specifying the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) at the time of recording satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, thus violating the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that it has the power to allow additional grounds of appeal if they relate to the subject matter of the entire tax proceedings, even if they do not directly arise from the impugned order. The issues were therefore remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment, additions can only be made if supported by incriminating seized material. Since no such material was found linking to the addition, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the onus of proving the expenses were bogus. The Tribunal noted that payments were made to banks and other parties, and no infirmity was pointed out in the individual expenditure heads.
The Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment, additions can only be made with supporting seized material. Since no such material was found linking to the addition, the assessee's appeal on this legal issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based solely on a change of opinion, without any new tangible material, is bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment, additions can only be made with supporting seized material. Since no such material was found linking to the addition, the assessee's appeal on this legal issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is inapplicable when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based solely on a change of opinion, without any new tangible material, is bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition of capital gains was confirmed for AY 2000-01, the protective addition made for AY 1999-2000 was of no value and required deletion.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if exceptions in the circular applied.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the delay in filing the Tax Audit Report. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment, additions can only be made with supporting seized material. Since no such material was found linking to the addition, the assessee's appeal on this legal issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment, additions can only be made with supporting seized material. Since no such material was found linking to the addition, the assessee's appeal on this legal issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment, additions can only be made with supporting seized material. Since no such material was found linking to the addition, the assessee's appeal on this legal issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that for a non-abated assessment, additions can only be made with supporting seized material. Since no such material was found linking to the addition, the assessee's appeal on this legal issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's complete disallowance and the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance were unsustainable. A uniform disallowance of 5% of the commission paid was directed to be made for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that payment of interest on loans from partners does not attract TDS provisions. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular relied upon by the CIT(A) does not apply to pharmaceutical companies. However, it found merit in the Assessing Officer's partial disallowance of expenditure not connected to the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is inapplicable when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect without going into the merits of the issues.
The Tribunal found that there was a need for more information regarding the settlement of transactions, the use of funds, and the applicability of Section 43(5). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect without going into the merits of the issue.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT's concern regarding the use of trustee's land was noted, the genuineness of the trust's activities was not in doubt. The matter was remanded to the CIT for a fresh examination of the NOCs and affidavits regarding the transfer of rights over the land.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the expenditure was not of an enduring nature and was for a specific tender. The CIT(A) had also noted that the other party had confirmed disclosing their share of income.
The Tribunal found the case peculiar due to the assessee's demise and the legal heir's need to gather data. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing to consider all relevant facts.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction under Section 54EC, stating that the investment was made beyond the statutory period of six months from the date of capital asset transfer. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the issue of alleged bogus purchases and related additions were not directly connected to the grounds raised before the lower authorities. It admitted the legal issues and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to grant an opportunity of being heard and admit additional evidence.
The Tribunal, after considering the dissenting opinions and a reference to a three-member bench, ultimately agreed with the Accountant Member. The majority view allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on Government Securities.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable in view of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department as per the CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit stipulated by the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's written request to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect, as the tax involved is less than Rs. 20 lakhs, which is the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This was due to the tax effect being less than the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals.