Loading ITAT cases…
265 orders · Page 3 of 6
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to decide the issue afresh after considering the pending civil suits and allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to decide the issue afresh after considering the pending civil suits and allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the issue of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 was not pressed. Regarding the computation of income, it was found that Rule 7 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which governs the computation of agricultural and business income from similar operations, was not applied by the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation applying Rule 7.
The Tribunal held that the issue of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 was not pressed. Regarding the computation of income, it was found that Rule 7 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which governs the computation of agricultural and business income from similar operations, was not applied by the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation applying Rule 7.
The Tribunal held that the issue of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 was not pressed. Regarding the computation of income, it was found that Rule 7 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which governs the computation of agricultural and business income from similar operations, was not applied by the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation applying Rule 7.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal held that employee's and employer's contribution to provident fund made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable. Contributions to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund were remitted to the AO for adjudication under Section 80G. Provisions of Section 43B were not attracted for interest on government-disbursed loans, and harvesting and transportation expenses were allowable as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside as the additions were not sustained.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal was not pressed/withdrawn due to being filed in contravention of the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the preliminary onus by providing affidavits from buyers and other documents explaining the reduced sale price. The Revenue failed to provide direct evidence to prove the receipt of additional consideration outside the books of account or that the affidavits were not genuine.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed as its filing contravened the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that where the assessee has established the receipt and consumption of goods, a portion of the purchases made from grey market dealers should be estimated. The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases over and above the net profit.
The tribunal held that BEML was not a good comparable and that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions only. The issue of capacity utilization adjustment was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction and make a specific reference to the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c) while initiating and levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable in law.
The tribunal held that BEML was not a good comparable and that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions only. The issue of capacity utilization adjustment was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that where the assessee has established the receipt and consumption of goods, a portion of the purchases made from grey market dealers should be estimated. The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases over and above the net profit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding that the evidence produced by the assessee for the additional purchases was not contemporaneous with the survey. The assessee's failure to bring these facts to the survey party's or AO's attention promptly was a key factor.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the addition at 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering it a reasoned order based on judicial precedents. The assessee's request to reduce this to 3% was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling on identical facts for an earlier assessment year. It held that pro-rata deduction is allowable for completed parts of a housing project, provided other conditions are met.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the addition at 10% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering it a reasoned order based on judicial precedents. The assessee's request to reduce this to 3% was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established its registration under Section 12A, as evidenced by past returns and subsequent application for 12AA registration. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission paid to two individuals was an ad-hoc addition and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. It also deleted the ad-hoc disallowance on land development costs and directed the AO to verify the exemption claim for a residential house with supporting documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, applying the CBDT Circular which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside as the additions were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission paid to two individuals was an ad-hoc addition and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. It also deleted the ad-hoc disallowance on land development costs and directed the AO to verify the exemption claim for a residential house with supporting documents.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that where the assessee has established the receipt and consumption of goods, a portion of the purchases made from grey market dealers should be estimated. The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases over and above the net profit.
The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, held that where the assessee has established the receipt and consumption of goods, a portion of the purchases made from grey market dealers should be estimated. The addition was restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases over and above the net profit.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to provide crucial evidence like an FIR or an insurance claim for the alleged theft of unregistered vehicles.
The Tribunal held that the commission was directly paid by the company to dealers and routed through the assessee's account, not incurred by the assessee. Following the principle of consistency and the lack of controverting evidence from the Revenue, the disallowance was deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that failure to furnish the recorded reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee, despite a request, makes the reassessment order bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard and the benefit of cross-examination. The notices from the CIT(A) were also not properly served, leading to ex-parte proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA subsequent to the assessment orders. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the assessments considering the granted registration.