Loading ITAT cases…
409 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits are applicable to all pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and not supported by genuine reasons. The assessee's negligence in pursuing the case before the lower authorities was also noted.
The Tribunal corrected its previous order, stating that the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, not fully allowed as initially stated.
The Tribunal corrected its previous order to state that the appeals were 'partly allowed' for statistical purposes, rather than 'allowed'. This correction was made to reflect the intended decision.
The Tribunal corrected its previous order to state that the appeals were 'partly allowed' for statistical purposes, rather than 'allowed'. This correction was made to reflect the intended decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to confirm an addition of Rs. 38,00,000/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the grounds of appeal before them.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had remanded the penalty issue for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 40A(3). It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which followed the precedent set by the ITAT in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's rights were not adjudicated due to the ex-parte nature of the order. It was decided that the assessee should be given a final opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case on merits with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vitiated due to the failure to strike off the inapplicable portions. This deprived the assessee of a proper opportunity to defend itself, making the penalty bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the excess claim of deduction was due to a bona fide and unintentional mistake. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Since the appeals were withdrawn by the assessee, they were dismissed as such.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a consortium of companies, was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and an audit objection without new material.
The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price and sale of sugar at concessional rates should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of Supreme Court judgments. The VSI contribution issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a consortium of companies, was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and an audit objection without new material.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to non-adjudication on merits and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with relevant evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded, the penalty order does not survive. Therefore, the issue of penalty is also remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee's interest-free funds were greater than its investments. For the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the matter was remanded to the AO to ascertain if exempt income was earned from investments in partnership firms.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. However, it noted that the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals and that pending appeals with low tax effect were to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Since the appeals were withdrawn by the assessee, they were dismissed as such.
The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to produce the valuation report from the Assistant Valuation Officer and to consider the additional grounds raised, including whether the property was a capital asset or a trading asset.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vitiated due to the failure to strike off the inapplicable portions. This deprived the assessee of a proper opportunity to defend itself, making the penalty bad in law.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant details to the AO and had not suppressed any information. Therefore, it could not be alleged that inaccurate particulars were filed, and the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. With no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remitted the matter back for a fresh disposal on merits, allowing the assessee to present his case and lead fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove any specific arrangement between the assessee and its associated enterprise that resulted in earning more than ordinary profits. The burden of proof for such an arrangement lies with the Revenue and was not discharged.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on partner's capital account is not to be considered for Section 14A disallowance. It also directed the AO to recompute the disallowance of administrative expenses, restricting it to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable as an intangible asset. However, due to the amortization already done, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including emails, demonstrating the receipt of services from TACO. Following previous precedents involving the assessee and other group companies, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the abnormal delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of additions for administrative services and the allowance of Section 80IC deduction. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not make available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, or know-how to the Indian entity, and therefore, the income could not be considered as 'Fees for technical services' under the DTAA. The Tribunal also held that the income was neither royalty nor FTS under the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal held that as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT circular, the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal held that a defect in the penalty notice, where both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) are retained without striking off the inapplicable one, vitiates the penalty order. This is in line with the jurisdictional High Court's Full Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A, which allowed for the levy of fee under Section 234E, was effective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, it was not applicable to defaults committed prior to this date.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of deduction for units where the built-up area exceeded 1500 sq.ft. due to the inclusion of garden area. It also upheld the denial for units allotted to the same person more than once, violating Section 80IB(10)(f).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable only on income added or disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Since the AO accepted the returned income without making any addition, the voluntarily offered income cannot be the basis for penalty.
The Tribunal held that the sale of software/license did not involve parting with copyright and therefore was not royalty under Article 12 of the DTAA. As the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India, the income also could not be taxed as business profits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee failed to produce any corroborating evidence before the lower authorities or the Tribunal to support the claim that development expenses were incurred solely on the sold portion of the land.