Loading ITAT cases…
332 tribunal orders from the Panaji bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 332 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction was unjustifiable as the restriction under Section 80IB(11C) pertains to the construction of the hospital, not its subsequent use, provided it was built according to local authority approvals. The Tribunal also noted that the deduction was allowed in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction was unjustifiable as the restriction under Section 80IB(11C) pertains to the construction of the hospital, not its subsequent use, provided it was built according to local authority approvals. The Tribunal also noted that the deduction was allowed in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction was unjustifiable as the restriction under Section 80IB(11C) pertains to the construction of the hospital, not its subsequent use, provided it was built according to local authority approvals. The Tribunal also noted that the deduction was allowed in a prior assessment year.
The tribunal found that the NFAC passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's submissions and the reconciliation statement. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction was unjustifiable as the restriction under Section 80IB(11C) pertains to the construction of the hospital, not its subsequent use, provided it was built according to local authority approvals. The Tribunal also noted that the deduction was allowed in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a proper explanation establishing a nexus between the loan withdrawals, cash deposits, and subsequent utilization for business purposes. The AO failed to bring on record evidence to disprove the genuineness of the loan or withdrawals.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not appear before the NFAC due to a communication breakdown with their authorized representative. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the NFAC for a fresh decision.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating on merits, was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, considering the lack of representation before the NFAC and the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating on merits, was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal for want of prosecution, without adjudicating on merits, was unreasonable and unjustified. The matter was remanded back to the NFAC for disposal on merits.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals, stating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's order. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals, stating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's order. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals, stating the issue of deduction u/s 80IB(10) was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's order. The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's revisionary order was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted an enquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Principal CIT failed to point out specific infirmities in the assessment order, making generalized allegations.
The Tribunal found that there was a miscommunication between the auditor and the assessee, constituting a reasonable cause for the delay. The delay in filing Form No. 10B was condoned.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide necessary details before the lower authorities, a final opportunity should be granted to justify the expenses. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to comply with the mandatory audit requirement under Section 44AB and the incorrect claim of partner remuneration deduction under Section 44AD rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since no assessment was pending for the assessment year and no incriminating material was found during the search, no addition could be made under section 153A. The AO was at liberty to take recourse to other legal provisions if permissible.
The Tribunal held that since no assessment was pending for the assessment year and no incriminating material was found during the search, no addition could be made under section 153A. The AO was at liberty to take recourse to other legal provisions if permissible.
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of vehicle rental expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS under Section 194C. It also upheld the addition for cessation of liability under Section 41(1) as the assessee failed to prove the liability remained outstanding.
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was validly invoked as the AO's assessment order was based on inadequate inquiry regarding the royalty expenditure. The expenditure was not adequately examined and was claimed for the first time, including amounts pertaining to earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable. For the earlier assessment years, there was no actual evidence found during the search to invoke Explanation 5A. For the last assessment year, Section 271AAB was the specific provision applicable, overriding Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee society on investments made with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, the additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits were upheld as the assessee failed to provide a proper reconciliation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of unexplained investments, especially given the requirements under Rule 6F for medical professionals. The Assessing Officer's assessment was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the claim for depreciation. However, since the AO had not verified if the assets were used wholly and exclusively for business purposes, the AO was directed to consider the claim.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 3.15 crores instead of the full unexplained receipt of Rs. 3.50 crores. The CIT was justified in deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank is not liable to tax under Section 115JB as its accounts were prepared in conformity with banking regulations, citing a Supreme Court decision. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow interest on refund, referencing a Karnataka High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as there was no evidence that the AO had examined the retrospective amendment to Section 115JB during the original assessment. The provisions for bad and doubtful debts are required to be added back to book profits as per the plain provisions of the Act.