Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is disapproved by the department.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting no objection from the Revenue. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remitted the matter back to the CIT. The CIT was directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting no objection from the Revenue. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, as there was no objection from the Revenue. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting no objection from the Revenue. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, as there was no objection from the Revenue. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that retaining cash in hand for business purposes is the assessee's prerogative and disallowance of interest is not warranted. Regarding the unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the identity and capacity of lenders were established, and the funds originated from a cooperative society, thus Section 68 was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in denying depreciation on non-compete fees and market information. It followed its own prior decision which granted depreciation on similar assets.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in denying depreciation on non-compete fees and market information. It followed its own prior decision which granted depreciation on similar assets.
The Tribunal held that retaining cash in hand for business purposes is the assessee's prerogative and disallowance of interest is not warranted. Regarding the unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the identity and capacity of lenders were established, and the funds originated from a cooperative society, thus Section 68 was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of completing the assessment without the DVO's report, despite agreeing to rectify the computation based on it, was impermissible. The matter was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii). However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding interest-free advances to Vishram I. Jagtap, Sudhakar Mulay, Vikram S. Mulay, and Hemant Constructions, holding them to be for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of completing the assessment without the DVO's report, despite agreeing to rectify the computation based on it, was impermissible. The matter was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. Therefore, the assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the filing of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme application. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not strike off irrelevant charges, failing to inform the assessee of the specific grounds to meet. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's method of allocating profit based on manufacturing and marketing expenses was flawed as it ignored material consumption and depreciation costs. The Tribunal also addressed a disallowance under Section 14A, deleting the interest component based on sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's method of allocating profit based on manufacturing and marketing expenses was flawed as it ignored material consumption and depreciation costs. The Tribunal also addressed a disallowance under Section 14A, deleting the interest component based on sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income earned. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the disallowance was restricted to the dividend income.
The Tribunal held that a registered document operates from the date of its execution, not registration, for the purpose of determining the year of taxability of capital gains. Therefore, the capital gain on the sale of property was taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the grounds of appeal related to transfer pricing issues as they were settled by the APA. The assessee was allowed to pursue the grounds related to corporate tax issues.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for re-deciding the transfer pricing adjustment after revising the comparable companies' data set. The issue of interest levy under Section 234A was also remanded for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the claim of reimbursement of expenses, which was not properly established with necessary details, could not be excluded from the gross receipts when taxed on a concessional gross basis. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow the correct TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the issues raised.
The Tribunal allowed the parties to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the parties to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the parties to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the parties to withdraw their respective appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that they were not given a proper opportunity to present evidence. Citing a previous order in the assessee's own case where the issue was remanded, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the valid and sufficient reasons provided by the assessee, which were beyond their control. The Tribunal also set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case for de-novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding cash payments to Charan Servo Petroleum, supported by a confirmation letter, was not acceptable. Applying a similar precedent from a prior assessment year, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances made by the CIT(A) regarding rent, advertisement expenses, security expenses, and interest on excise duty. The disallowance of interest for delay in TDS payment was also confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be valid and beyond his control. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and remanded the case for de-novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present his case.
The Tribunal held that the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee's own case, which confirmed that CFS is an infrastructure facility eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal held that income from unsold flats treated as stock-in-trade should be considered under 'Profits and Gains from business or profession' and not 'Income from House Property'. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2017, effective from 01-04-2018, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal request due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to restore the appeal if the settlement under the scheme failed.
The Tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt income should be excluded when calculating disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). It also held that the remaining 50% depreciation can be claimed in subsequent years, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, if employees' contributions are deposited before the due date under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of agricultural income was made in violation of natural justice as the AO relied on NHB reports without confronting them to the assessee. The disallowance of legal expenses was upheld as the assessee failed to establish their business connection and no business income was offered.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, if employees' contributions are deposited before the due date under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.
The tribunal held that principles of natural justice require a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since no personal hearing was conducted, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the provisions regarding deemed rental income under Section 23(4) are applicable prospectively from AY 2017-18. Therefore, no addition on account of deemed rent for unsold flats held as stock-in-trade could be made for AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal, following its own order for a previous assessment year with similar facts, set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.