Loading ITAT cases…
22 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that a trial run of machinery falls within the ambit of 'used for the purpose of business'. Following the Gujarat High Court judgment in ACIT vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no cogent material to support the Revenue's contention that the firm was formed by splitting up or reconstruction. The Tribunal noted that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for deduction under Section 10AA.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was bona fide, supported by RBI guidelines, and the issue was debatable due to conflicting ITAT decisions. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1000 on the assessee for wasting the revenue authority's time. The AO is to decide the penalty after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and lacked reasoning, constituting a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee to present his case, subject to a penalty for wasting the revenue authority's time. The AO is to decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeals pending and accordingly dismissed them. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view in allowing the deduction, especially considering the Gujarat High Court's stance favoring the assessee on similar issues. When two views are possible and the AO adopts one, the order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view in allowing the deduction for interest income from a co-operative bank. Since there were differing High Court judgments on this issue and the AO's view was not unsustainable in law, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO took a possible view in allowing the deduction, as there were conflicting High Court judgments on the issue. Since the Gujarat High Court's view favored the assessee, the AO's order could not be considered erroneous, and the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no cogent material to support the Revenue's contention that the firm was formed by splitting up or reconstruction. The Tribunal noted that suspicion cannot replace evidence and that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for deduction under Section 10AA.
The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeals pending and accordingly dismissed them. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found no reason to keep the appeals pending and accordingly dismissed them. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the dispute was not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal as not pressed. For the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding cess disallowance, allowed the deduction for education and secondary cess, and also allowed deductions under sections 80IA and 80JJA. The disallowance of interest expenses under section 14A was restricted to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee.
The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal as not pressed. For the Revenue's appeal, the ITAT dismissed the ground related to cess disallowance, allowed the deduction for education and secondary cess, and partially allowed the disallowance of interest expenses under Section 14A.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving notices. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving notices. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving notices. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that merely because the trust deed contains other objects, it does not disqualify the trust from being approved under section 10(23C)(vi) if it has exclusively carried out educational activities. The CIT(Exemption) erred in denying approval based solely on the trust deed's objects.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable against a dissolved company which no longer exists in the eyes of law. The assessment order passed against a non-existent entity would be without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the stock discrepancy was a clerical error in the return and not reflected in the audited financials. The Revenue failed to controvert these findings.