Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the management support fees are not taxable in India, following its own previous decisions and noting that the relevant CBDT circular was not applicable retrospectively. For other fees, the Tribunal remanded the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening and reassessments were invalid because the income that formed the basis for reopening was not assessed. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was also annulled as its foundation was non-existent.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not empowered to reopen the assessment for AY 1994-95 under Section 150(1) as there was no direction from the Tribunal in the earlier appeal to tax the capital gains in that year. The reassessment was therefore not maintainable.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not independently verify the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors, especially those whose addresses were found to be false. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's explanation without verification and without calling for a remand report on the disallowance of interest and set off of losses. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the credit of MAT before charging interest.
The Tribunal held that the reopening and reassessments were invalid because the income that formed the basis for reopening was not assessed. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was also annulled as its foundation was non-existent.
The tribunal held that employee's contribution to provident fund must be deposited before the due date specified in the respective statute for it to be allowed as a deduction. Since the assessee admitted to depositing the amount late, the disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-adjudicate the issue based on the findings of the CIT(Exemption) regarding the grant of registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-adjudicate the issue based on the findings of the CIT(Exemption) regarding the grant of registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-adjudicate the issue based on the findings of the CIT(Exemption) regarding the grant of registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-adjudicate the issue based on the findings of the CIT(Exemption) regarding the grant of registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-adjudicate the issue based on the findings of the CIT(Exemption) regarding the grant of registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-adjudicate the issue based on the findings of the CIT(Exemption) regarding the grant of registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) because the claim was not made in the original return of income, as mandated by Section 80A(5). Exemption provisions require strict interpretation.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decision, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer. This was to re-adjudicate the issue based on the findings of the CIT(Exemption) regarding the grant of registration under Section 12AA.
The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding opening cash balance as not pressed. The tribunal confirmed the AO's estimation of the cost of acquisition of land. The tribunal remanded the issue of Section 54B deduction for re-adjudication based on actual purchase value.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The penalty appeals were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The penalty appeals were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to tax the interest income received on delayed compensation. It affirmed that such interest is taxable as per statutory amendments and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenditure. It agreed with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the claimed expenses, despite opportunities.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the deduction. The purchase agreement for the new property showed a detailed payment schedule that extended beyond one year prior to the sale of the original property.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the capital gain was assessable in the hands of the company, citing the principle that income must be assessed in the right person's hands. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's request for a remand.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities wrongly invoked Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) as it was applicable only to search actions carried out on or before June 1, 2007, while the search in this case was conducted later. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that a protective reassessment is not valid in the eyes of law when the substantive assessment has already been completed. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the factual evidence regarding whether the business was set up and if the advances were made in the ordinary course of business. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on the available material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions under section 271AAA(2) by not specifying the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. However, it also noted a divergent view from the Gujarat High Court regarding the necessity of a specific query from the authorized officer. Ultimately, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, citing the Gujarat High Court's view and the fact that the assessee had already paid all due taxes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) is justified if the employees' share of contributions is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under the respective Acts. Payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are not sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) could not decide the matter on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the Income Tax Act as a welfare legislation, the Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, granted one final opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that the transactions were void ab initio due to fraud. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and deliberately withheld information.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back. The assessee is granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits before the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, granted one final opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the significant risks and rewards of the project were transferred in the year of the MOU and receipt of 90% consideration. Therefore, the income was taxable in the year under consideration as business income.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits of the issues and dismissed the appeal for non-appearance, it was proper to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the method of valuation adopted by the assessee if no flaws are found in the assessee's calculation. The DCF method used by the assessee was found to be on a conservative side and thus acceptable.
The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to Provident Fund and ESI must be deposited within the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes to be eligible for deduction. Payment after these dates, even if before the return filing due date, leads to disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the delay condonation petition should be considered in the interest of justice and directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay. The issues raised in grounds 2 to 4 were also remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the employer is duty-bound to deposit employees' provident fund contributions within the due date prescribed by the respective statutes. Failure to do so disentitles the employer to a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the entire land was agricultural land as it was located beyond 8 kilometers of municipal limits and the population was less than ten thousand, entitling the assessee to claim exemption. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the entire land was agricultural land as it was located beyond 8 kilometers of municipal limits and the population was less than ten thousand, entitling the assessee to claim exemption. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying Section 43CA without considering the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) which deal with agreements fixing the value of consideration prior to the date of transfer. The matter was remanded to determine the differential value with reference to the earlier registered agreements.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to contest the PCIT's revision proposal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh consideration.