Loading ITAT cases…
298 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) cannot adjudicate on merits without the assessee's submissions, a welfare legislation like the Income Tax Act warrants one final opportunity for the taxpayer. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, considering there were no adverse implications from the PCIT's order and to avoid litigation costs.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was below the monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions, the appeals were not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It deleted the addition made under Section 43CA, finding that the difference between sale price and SRO rates was within the permissible tolerance. An ad-hoc disallowance was reduced.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, considering there were no adverse implications from the PCIT's order and to avoid litigation costs.
The Tribunal held that the mortgage expenditure was not an allowable deduction as it was not part of the cost of acquisition or improvement. The Tribunal distinguished between mortgages created by previous owners and those created by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to treat the interest income from FDs as income from other sources, as the assessee failed to prove an intrinsic nexus between the FDs and its business. However, the issue of expenditure incurred for earning this interest was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the assessee failed to disclose the accumulated income and could not establish bonafides for the non-disclosure with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the capital asset should be recognized from the date of the agreement and the first installment, not the date of possession. Therefore, the capital gain should be computed as long-term.
The Tribunal found that the manner of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was unclear in both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the addition for rental income was not justified due to proper reconciliation of figures including service tax and reversal of entries. The issue of interest on excise duty was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with new evidence. Additions for prior period expenses were partly deleted and partly restricted.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that interest income earned on the investment of surplus money with banks is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, such as change in law and lack of expertise, did not constitute sufficient cause. Consequently, the delay was not condoned.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of suppressed production was not maintainable, following its own prior decisions in the assessee's own case and a related case. The Revenue did not present any contrary evidence.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was considered crucial for the matter. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on this new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the tolerance margins introduced in Section 43CA are retrospective in nature, similar to Section 50C. However, for one flat, the mandatory procedural requirement of Section 43CA(2) read with Section 50C(2) was not followed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical reasons. However, it upheld the addition made under Section 68 as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits, despite prior opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT Circular regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that mere admissions made during survey proceedings do not hold significance without supporting evidence. Section 292C of the Act presumes correctness of seized documents, not mere statements.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should await the outcome of the Section 12AA registration before deciding on the Section 11 exemption. The assessee was allowed to present further evidence after the registration decision.
The Tribunal held that the Section 143(2) notice was not issued to the assessee (HUF) but to an individual, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit with reasons. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on a gifted asset based on the previous owner's written-down value as per Explanation 2 to Section 43(1). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat profit on share trading as business income due to frequent transactions and the assessee's own classification in preceding and subsequent years.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal considered the settlement under VSV-20 and allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a 'reasonable cause' for accepting cash loans and making cash repayments due to pressing circumstances and urgent requirements. Therefore, the penalties imposed were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a 'reasonable cause' for accepting cash loans and making cash repayments due to pressing circumstances and urgent requirements. Therefore, the penalties imposed were deleted.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals due to the subsequent grant of provisional registration. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals due to the subsequent grant of provisional registration. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that cane harvesting and transportation expenses are allowable as per CBDT Circular. The issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The issue of excess cane price paid was also restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The tribunal held that cane harvesting and transportation expenses are allowable as per CBDT Circular. The issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The issue of excess cane price paid was also restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that cane harvesting and transportation expenses are allowable as per CBDT Circular. The issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The issue of excess cane price paid was also restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the difference in the share of profit should not be treated as 'Income from other sources' as it was a mistake in not adjusting the declared figure. The necessary financial statements supported the actual share.
The Tribunal held that the average value of investments for Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be confined to securities yielding exempt income, not total investments. The matter was remitted to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had already quashed the order passed under Section 263. Therefore, the consequential order of the AO was rendered non-existent, making the Revenue's appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the issue of revenue expenditure. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal to be insufficient. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, rendering the grounds of appeal infructuous.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Since the addition which formed the basis for the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal, the consequential penalty order cannot stand. Therefore, the penalty is ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-computation.