Loading ITAT cases…
57 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench in 2020.
Showing 40 of 57 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the Revenue's lack of objection.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no objection from the Revenue.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the incriminating documents seized during the search and the nexus between paper companies and the funds introduced. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per the latest CBDT circulars. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.
The Tribunal held that the credit received from MSEDCL for power supplied was indeed income of the power plant eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. On merits, it found that the CIT(A)'s findings were not in sync with judicial pronouncements stating that penalty is not leviable if the payee has already paid taxes. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case. This decision was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. On merits, it found that the CIT(A)'s findings were not in sync with judicial pronouncements stating that penalty is not leviable if the payee has already paid taxes. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which empowered the Assessing Officer to levy late filing fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from June 1, 2015. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to charge late filing fees for defaults occurring prior to this date.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing judicial precedents. It held that the assessee had no responsibility to deduct tax at source on payments made to doctors and hospitals on behalf of employees for medical expenses.
The Tribunal held that the issue of telescoping of cash requires detailed verification and restored it to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication. For the expenditure, Rs. 75,00,000/- for road construction was allowed as revenue expenditure, while Rs. 20,00,000/- for toilets was treated as capital expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing judicial precedents. It held that the assessee had no responsibility to deduct tax at source on payments made to doctors and hospitals on behalf of employees for medical expenses.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer lacks clear satisfaction or shows ambiguity regarding the specific charge for penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings become void-ab-initio. The assessee is entitled to know the exact charge to prepare their defense.
The Tribunal restored the issue under Section 40(a)(ia) to the CIT(A) for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court judgments. The relief granted for delayed EPF deposit was sustained.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as it fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars for filing appeals. The Tribunal clarified that the Revenue could seek restoration if the appeal met exceptions outlined in the circular.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders on Section 14A disallowance and remitted the matter for reconsideration of recent Supreme Court developments. The appeal concerning book profit was dismissed as the reassessment proceedings were found invalid.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was primarily due to the low tax effect involved in the appeals, which fell below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a reasoned order regarding the frequency of transactions and the assessee's intention. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication.