Loading ITAT cases…
7 tribunal orders from the Panaji bench in 2019.
Showing 7 of 7 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision of the Delhi ITAT, which held that UPS is an integral part of a computer system and entitled to 60% depreciation. Therefore, the assessee's claim was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it consistent with a previous ITAT decision on similar facts for the assessee's own case. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of four days in the clearance of the cheque was attributable to the banking channel and not the fault of the assessee. Therefore, the technical ground of delay should not be used to deny the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensatory afforestation expenditure is a revenue expenditure, relying on High Court decisions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT for a fresh decision.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that, as per the Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are to be considered for computing the average value of investments under Rule 8D(2)(iii).