Loading ITAT cases…
136 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as there was no rational nexus between the reasons recorded for reopening and the belief of escaped income. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the revenue had no objection, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that provisions made for standard assets as per RBI guidelines should be considered as provision for bad and doubtful debts for the purpose of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The Tribunal followed a Karnataka High Court decision on this issue.
The tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as foot over bridges and road signages do not constitute 'infrastructure facility' as defined. However, the disallowance under Section 43B was deleted because the advertisement tax was not debited to the profit and loss account and no deduction was claimed.
The Tribunal held that amounts received for off-the-shelf software and standard facilities are not royalty, following its own precedent. The issue of reimbursements was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with liberty to the assessee to produce evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) relied solely on the survey report without providing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions. The order was passed without adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that new arguments and written submissions were filed by the assessee. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine these submissions afresh and decide the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the reinvestment made in the names of sons and wife for agricultural land needs further examination. Regarding the expenses to avoid litigation, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate the necessity of such payments to perfect the title or avoid litigation, especially since other co-owners did not make similar payments.
The Tribunal held that since the information was unearthed during a search on another person's premises and pertained to the assessee, Section 153C of the Income Tax Act should have been invoked instead of Section 143(3). Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal heard the parties and, in view of the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by a coordinate bench's decision and that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that new arguments and written submissions were filed by the assessee. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine these submissions afresh and decide the issue after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was ex-parte and not decided on merits. Observing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a draft assessment order is not an empty formality and is a mandatory requirement. Failure to issue a draft assessment order vitiates the final assessment order, especially when proceedings are remanded back for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the credit to the capital account arising from the reversal of provision for taxation was not a cash credit under Section 68. The authorities below were not justified in treating it as such.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that staff members are also members of the society and that the rule of consistency should apply, as no such disallowance was made in the past. Therefore, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was directed to be deleted.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not given the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following its own precedent in similar cases of other co-owners, the Tribunal overturned the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that even if the assessee did not explicitly request a DVO reference before the AO, the AO has a duty to act fairly and offer the option provided by law. The matter was restored to the AO for a reference to the DVO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The tribunal upheld disallowance of a portion of diesel and maintenance expenses, considering personal debits and discrepancies. For rent paid, disallowance was upheld for one recipient but the matter was remanded for the remaining recipients to verify if the income was offered to tax.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the first set of expenses, finding that they were not adequately substantiated. However, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance made under Section 40A(2), reasoning that the higher freight paid to related parties was justified due to the dedicated availability of their vehicles.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the partnership deed dated 29.04.2001 clearly stated that individual shares of partners were specified as equal. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. It allowed a partial relief on the addition related to agricultural income/personal savings, directing the addition to be restricted to Rs. 2 lakhs. However, the additions related to gifts from relatives were confirmed due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds regarding the 'Principles of Mutuality' and, following its own precedent and the concession of the revenue, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds regarding the 'Principles of Mutuality' and, following its own precedent and the concession of the revenue, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal held that the payments for software were not taxable in India as royalty or fees for technical services, especially considering the beneficial provisions of the India-France DTAA and its MFN clause with the India-Portugal DTAA. Therefore, no TDS was required.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. Since the Revenue failed to point out any distinguishing facts or contrary decisions, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. Since the Revenue failed to point out any distinguishing facts or contrary decisions, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09. Since the Revenue failed to point out any distinguishing facts or contrary decisions, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the relief granted to the assessee. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, enhanced to ₹50 lakhs, apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not maintainable.