Loading ITAT cases…
10 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 was ex-parte and the issues were common to the revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the Tribunal remitted all issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 was ex-parte and the issues were common to the revenue's appeal for AY 2009-10. Therefore, to ensure fairness, the Tribunal remitted all issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263 as the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had failed to properly examine the issue of deductibility of loss of assets against gross revenue receipts.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal at the threshold, finding that the information received from the Land Acquisition Officer did not qualify as information from a law enforcement agency as per the CBDT circular exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter had become infructuous. The addition made in the assessment order had been deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that 90% of net interest should be reduced for Section 80HHC deduction, following Supreme Court judgments. It also ruled that interest under Section 234B should be charged as per Section 234B(4) and not 234B(3), as the assessment was not a re-assessment under Section 147/153A.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter had become infructuous. The additions made in the assessment order were deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper enquiry regarding unexplained credits in the bank account and a debit in the P&L account. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment and directing a fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of provision for bad debts as the assessee subsequently provided necessary details and the AO found no adverse findings. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the ad-hoc disallowance on expenses, finding the reasoning for the restriction justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the proceedings were initiated. This lack of specificity indicates a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.