Loading ITAT cases…
134 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessees to substantiate their cases. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding past accepted book results and comparable cases. It directed that a net profit of 3.2% would meet the ends of justice, partly allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54 should be computed based on the actual sale consideration, not the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Smt. Nilofer I. Singh. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision. On the issue of exemption for the second residential house, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54 for the second residential unit. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gita Duggal, where it was held that a residential house comprising several independent units does not disentitle the assessee to deduction u/s 54/54F. The Tribunal noted that the amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, making the exemption applicable to only one residential house in India, is prospective and not applicable to AY 2011-12. Therefore, the denial of exemption for the second house by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessees to substantiate their cases. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessees to substantiate their cases. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54 should be computed based on the actual sale consideration, not the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Smt. Nilofer I. Singh. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision. On the issue of exemption for the second residential house, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54 for the second residential unit. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gita Duggal, where it was held that a residential house comprising several independent units does not disentitle the assessee to deduction u/s 54/54F. The Tribunal noted that the amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, making the exemption applicable to only one residential house in India, is prospective and not applicable to AY 2011-12. Therefore, the denial of exemption for the second house by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the grounds raised by the Revenue was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT circular raising monetary limits for appeals, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order before considering the assessee's subsequent submission and additional evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order before considering the assessee's subsequent submission and additional evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees.
The Tribunal noted that the basis of the addition did not refer to any incriminating material and that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of the applicability of Section 153C. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed the order before considering the assessee's subsequent submission and additional evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs. 20 lakhs. Citing a CBDT circular that raised monetary limits for appeals, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that if employee's contribution to PF and ESIC is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. This decision followed a previous ruling by the same bench.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that the tax effect was below Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the CBDT circular raising the monetary limits for appeals, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the commission expenses disallowance. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient justification for the commission payments, which were made through banking channels and reflected in the recipients' income tax returns.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to grant a final opportunity to the assessees to present their case and adduce evidence. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after giving due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular raising the monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the proceedings were initiated. Following High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to appear without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular raising the monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the applicability of Section 50C to the transfer of leasehold rights. It held that since this issue was not raised before the lower authorities, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular raising the monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which raised the monetary limits for filing appeals, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable. Consequently, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees were rendered infructuous.