Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not deciding the issue on merit and that the Annual Lettable Value should be based on Municipal valuation, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The AO is directed to recompute the valuation based on municipal rateable value.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer may not be empowered to entertain a claim not made in the return, appellate authorities can allow such claims if otherwise eligible. Therefore, the assessment order could not be declared erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in similar cases, holding that the AO was not justified in ignoring the assessee's return and making an addition under Section 68 for income already offered. The impugned order was overturned on this issue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is to decide the issue afresh in line with the Tribunal's directions in earlier similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the trust did not violate Section 13(1)(c) as the trustees provided voluntary services and their own hospital building to the trust without charge. The accommodation and equipment usage were considered adequate compensation for these services.
The Tribunal held that a claim withdrawn in a revised return cannot be allowed by the CIT(A) for the first time, especially when it hasn't been examined by the AO. The revised return substitutes the original, and Section 80A(5) requires the claim to be made in the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have sought the AO's comments on the additional evidence before deleting the addition. The matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision which had remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO needs to determine if the difference between market price and concessional price is an appropriation of profit, considering Supreme Court directions.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already decided a similar issue by remitting it to the AO for fresh consideration, following a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, this appeal is also restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had dealt with a similar issue and, following the Supreme Court's directions in a related case, set aside the impugned orders. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO is obligated to satisfy the correct limb of the penalty provision at the time of initiation and levy. Failure to strike out the irrelevant charge renders the penalty order unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TDS statements, considering the practical difficulties faced by the assessee, especially with the introduction of e-TDS filing. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential orders did not result in any additions, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential orders did not result in any additions, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential orders did not result in any additions, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential orders did not result in any additions, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential orders did not result in any additions, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as infructuous.
The tribunal noted that the PCIT's order was ex-parte and the assessee's rights were not adjudicated. In the interest of justice, the tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the matter to the PCIT's file for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue of concessional sale of sugar to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For VSI contribution, following the Bombay High Court's decision, the assessee was held entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s order, following its own precedents for previous assessment years where similar deductions were allowed. The Tribunal directed the grant of the weighted deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as the facts and circumstances are similar to previous years where the Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee. No contrary material was presented by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential orders did not result in any additions, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Since the assessee requested the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn because the consequential orders did not result in any additions, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to determine the profit component in excess cane price payments and to examine the sale of sugar at concessional rates in light of Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits, allowing the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction claimed on 'extra work' as the assessee failed to provide evidence of its nature. However, for the architect fees, a portion was allowed to be considered for the deduction under Section 80IB(10) based on the proportion allocated to the eligible project.
The Tribunal held that while oil company standards are generally applicable, specific reasons for excess wastage, such as tank breakage, must be examined. Since the assessee provided such reasons and the wastage was lower than the previous year, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's activities with Yashwantrao Chavhan Maharashtra Open University were educational, the coaching classes for competitive exams needed fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer. Exemption would only be granted for courses strictly aligned with UGC guidelines.