Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department, which were enhanced to Rs. 50.00 lakh.
The Tribunal held that the foreign travel expenses were genuine and incurred for business purposes, citing the director's efforts to understand showroom management in competitive markets and the presence of a board resolution authorizing the travel.
The Tribunal held that even under the mercantile system of accounting, income that has accrued but is impossible to realize due to circumstances like a bank ban cannot be taxed. The 'real income theory' dictates that hypothetical income should not be charged to tax.
The ITAT found that the grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated on merits due to non-appearance. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the provision for after sales costs was allowable as expenditure, as it was made on a consistent and scientific basis and had been allowed in prior years. Regarding the cross-objection, the Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the non-receipt of Form 3CM was a procedural lapse and not fatal to the claim, especially since recognition was granted. For Section 14A, the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.
The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal did not raise any objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by not applying Section 115JB, which is mandatory for companies. The revisionary power of the PCIT under Section 263 was valid as the issue of Section 115JB was not considered by the AO or the CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department, which were enhanced to Rs. 50.00 lakh.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the penalty was imposed based on an assessment order that was no longer valid. Therefore, the issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the penalty was imposed based on an assessment order that was no longer valid. Therefore, the issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) and that the matter was dismissed ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the penalty was imposed based on an assessment order that was no longer valid. Therefore, the issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue to Rs. 50.00 lakh, and this limit was applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not entertained.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, remanding one issue for further verification and upholding the exclusion of certain comparables. The revenue's appeal was allowed, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on the inclusion of specific companies as comparables.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue without going into the merits of the case. This was based on the low tax effect, which fell below the enhanced monetary limits set by recent CBDT circulars for appeals to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc addition is warranted and the addition should be based on the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine and bogus purchases. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for this calculation.
The Tribunal held that no ad-hoc addition is warranted and the addition should be based on the difference between the gross profit rate on genuine and bogus purchases. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for this calculation.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, remanding one issue for further verification and upholding the exclusion of certain comparables. The revenue's appeal was allowed, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on the inclusion of specific companies as comparables.