Loading ITAT cases…
221 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act as they lacked reasoned adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking Section 148/147 after four years to rectify his own oversight. The provisions are not meant to correct the AO's negligence, and reopening based on a change of opinion after reappreciating existing facts is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the non-receipt of Form 3CM was a procedural lapse and not fatal to the claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), relying on a previous decision for an earlier assessment year. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order passed by the CIT under Section 263 was set aside by a coordinate bench, the consequential assessment order did not survive. Additionally, the CIT(A) had granted relief on merits.
The Tribunal held that if the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 is set aside, the consequential assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 does not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deeming the assessment order void.
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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was based on a previous order of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had remitted the issue for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions of the allottees were established. Therefore, the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act were not attracted, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion, as the Assessing Officer was already aware of the investments and dividend income during the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) were in contravention of Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates reasoned orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating penalty was vague and ambiguous, mentioning both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) initially but invoking only one during penalty imposition. This violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the case of a sister concern, which was also upheld by the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was illegal due to the procedural lapse under Section 144C. However, since the assessee accepted a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution regarding transfer pricing adjustments, that specific amount was sustained.
The Tribunal found ample evidence that the holding company did provide administrative support services. It overturned the AO's disallowance of the payment made for these services.
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 circular. The Revenue can seek restoration if exceptions apply.
The Tribunal held that the purpose of the subsidy was for industrial development and capital investment, making it a capital receipt. The fact that it was received in the form of a sales tax waiver did not alter its capital nature.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to fulfill the three conditions of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditor. The shifting stand of the assessee and non-compliance with summons were noted.
The Tribunal noted that the DRP had provided the necessary relief to the assessee concerning comparables. Therefore, the appeal was rendered academic and infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, finding that Section 153C was not applicable as no documents belonging to the assessee were found during the search. The claim of violation of natural justice was dismissed as the assessee failed to avail opportunities provided and did not request cross-examination before lower authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148, finding that Section 153C was not applicable as no documents belonging to the assessee were found during the search. The claim of violation of natural justice was dismissed as the assessee failed to avail opportunities provided and did not request cross-examination before lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction and specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) for initiating and levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were identical to those decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings of the lower appellate authority were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents, coupled with the statement of Ajay B. Tapadia, clearly indicated the assessee's involvement in on-money payments. The assessee failed to dislodge these allegations and did not ensure the presence of the vendor for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were identical to those decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings of the lower appellate authority were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents, coupled with the statement of Ajay B. Tapadia, clearly indicated the assessee's involvement in on-money payments. The assessee failed to dislodge these allegations and did not ensure the presence of the vendor for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are eligible for deduction under Section 43D for interest on sticky advances, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that additional depreciation on windmills is allowable, citing High Court decisions that support this claim for assessees engaged in windmill energy generation.
The Tribunal held that the issues regarding management services fees and warranty provision were covered by its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was confirmed.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal directed the AO to pass a speaking order considering the principle of proportion for clause (ii) disallowance, allowing the issue for statistical purposes, while dismissing the ground related to clause (iii). For AY 2013-14, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as not pressed for clause (ii) and dismissed on merits for clause (iii), rendering the Revenue's cross-appeal infructuous.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal directed the AO to pass a speaking order considering the principle of proportion for clause (ii) disallowance, allowing the issue for statistical purposes, while dismissing the ground related to clause (iii). For AY 2013-14, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as not pressed for clause (ii) and dismissed on merits for clause (iii), rendering the Revenue's cross-appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal quashed the revisional order of the Pr. CIT, rendering the subsequent fresh assessment order invalid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative credit society is distinct from a cooperative bank and is entitled to deduction under Section 80P. The court found that the assessee's activities did not disqualify it from the deduction.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative credit society is distinct from a cooperative bank and is entitled to deduction under Section 80P. The ratio of the Citizen Co-operative Society case was found not applicable due to differences in the definition of 'member' under relevant state cooperative acts.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative credit society is distinct from a cooperative bank and is entitled to deduction under Section 80P. The court found that the assessee's activities did not disqualify it from the deduction.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative credit society is distinct from a cooperative bank and is entitled to deduction under Section 80P. The court found that the assessee's activities did not disqualify it from the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the arm's length interest rate should be determined based on rates prevalent in the country where the loan is received/consumed, not where the lender is situated. Since the assessee charged interest higher than the arm's length rate based on foreign country rates, no adjustment was warranted.