Loading ITAT cases…
90 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted by the assessee's registered valuer, which considered multiple valuation methods, was reasonable and should be given weight. The Tribunal also found that the claim for deduction under section 54B, though made at the appellate stage, was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted by the assessee's registered valuer, which considered multiple valuation methods, was reasonable and should be given weight. The Tribunal also found that the claim for deduction under section 54B, though made at the appellate stage, was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted by the assessee's registered valuer, which considered multiple valuation methods, was reasonable and should be given weight. The Tribunal also found that the claim for deduction under section 54B, though made at the appellate stage, was admissible.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report submitted by the assessee's registered valuer, which considered multiple valuation methods, was reasonable and should be given weight. The Tribunal also found that the claim for deduction under section 54B, though made at the appellate stage, was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds and made enhancements without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT-III, Pune v. Rajasthan and Gujarat Charitable Foundation, held that depreciation is allowable to trusts even when capital expenditure is claimed from income. The amendment to Section 11(6) was prospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to depreciation.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not substantiated from the identified parties, disallowing the entire amount was not justified as sales were not doubted. Following jurisdictional High Court precedent, the addition was restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to establish that the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as required by Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had made due inquiries and arrived at a plausible view, which could not be disturbed by the Pr. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the shares received by the assessee company from family members constituted a gift. It also found that corporate guarantee charges were recovered and that the addition of such charges to total income resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the shares received by the assessee company from family members constituted a gift. It also found that corporate guarantee charges were recovered and that the addition of such charges to total income resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal held that for a loan of Rs. 1 Lakh from Parth K Ghediya and Rs. 3 Lakhs from a non-resident through banking channels, the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68. However, for other cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient identity and address proofs, and the Assessing Officer should have conducted further inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the validity of reopening was not admissible as it was not raised earlier without proper justification. On merits, the Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation was obtained during assessment proceedings of a related case, and the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence or objections to dispute the valuation.
The Tribunal held that the shares received by the assessee company from family members constituted a gift. It also found that corporate guarantee charges were recovered and that the addition of such charges to total income resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of unaccounted rough diamonds was based on flawed calculations and lacked corroborative evidence. The assessee's explanation regarding stock discrepancies and the availability of sufficient rough diamonds was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the shares received by the assessee company constituted a gift. It also found that the corporate guarantee provided before 2012 was not an international transaction and that adding back guarantee charges resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of unaccounted rough diamonds was based on flawed calculations and lacked corroborative evidence. The assessee's explanation regarding stock discrepancies and the availability of sufficient rough diamonds was accepted.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions and High Court judgments, held that the acquisition of agricultural land by the SMC for a sewage treatment plant was indeed a compulsory acquisition. Therefore, the conditions for exemption under Section 10(37) were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, stemming from its public sector bank procedures. It found no negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the land acquisition by SMC was indeed a compulsory acquisition, following the procedures laid out in relevant acts. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, stemming from its public sector bank procedures. It found no negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, stemming from its public sector bank procedures. It found no negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, stemming from its public sector bank procedures. It found no negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, stemming from its public sector bank procedures. It found no negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted as the payments were genuine, identifiable, and made due to business expediency. The rigors of Section 40A(3) should be lifted in such circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in refusing registration without verifying records and on grounds not in accordance with the law. The Commissioner's decision was based on the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence for the genuineness of the trust's activities.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the case were identical to a previous decision involving co-owners of the same land. In that case, the Tribunal directed the adoption of index cost of acquisition by taking the fair market value at Rs. 210.
The tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AA. The assessee had satisfied the necessary conditions for registration.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid was allowable expenditure. The assessee had unsecured loans on which no interest was paid, and had given interest-free loans from interest-free funds, which were used for business purposes.