Loading ITAT cases…
41 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not tick either limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty orders were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not tick either limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty orders were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the quantum assessment under the VSV-20 scheme. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also considered settled.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment dispute was settled under the VSV-20 scheme, the consequential penalty appeals also stood settled. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment dispute was settled under the VSV-20 scheme, the consequential penalty appeals also stood settled. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment dispute was settled under the VSV-20 scheme, the consequential penalty appeals also stood settled. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and, noting that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Visvas Scheme, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had subsequently submitted all the required documents and evidence to the CIT(Exemption), including financial statements and details of activities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had not found the society to be a sham entity and that the grant received from the government indicated the genuineness of its activities.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 on technical grounds related to the validity of the notice issued under Section 147. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance on disputed purchases to 6% of the impugned purchases, following a precedent.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 on technical grounds related to the validity of the notice issued under Section 147. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance on disputed purchases to 6% of the impugned purchases, following a precedent.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 on technical grounds related to the validity of the notice issued under Section 147. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance on disputed purchases to 6% of the impugned purchases, following a precedent.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 on technical grounds related to the validity of the notice issued under Section 147. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance on disputed purchases to 6% of the impugned purchases, following a precedent.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 on technical grounds related to the validity of the notice issued under Section 147. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance on disputed purchases to 6% of the impugned purchases, following a precedent.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 on technical grounds related to the validity of the notice issued under Section 147. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance on disputed purchases to 6% of the impugned purchases, following a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for seeking time and was not given a fair and proper opportunity by the NFAC. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC for adjudication afresh.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and applied his mind. The PCIT's order was set aside as it was based on substituting his own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, disallowed 6% of the impugned purchases. This decision was based on the principle of taxing only the income component of disputed transactions to prevent revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of proportionate expenses was ad-hoc and not based on evidence of non-allowability. The CIT(A) had correctly noted that expenses were incurred for business turnover and would have been incurred regardless of the admitted income.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent investigation or disputing the assessee's sales. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases to tax the income component and avoid revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received part payment in advance for the sale of agricultural land and utilized this advance for purchasing new agricultural land, satisfying the conditions for deduction under section 54B.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent investigation or disputing the assessee's sales. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases to tax the income component and avoid revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was not justified. It found that the Assessing Officer had taken a view that was not unsustainable in law, and that the PCIT could not exercise revisionary powers merely because he disagreed with the Assessing Officer's view.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee is a mutual association, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. However, the issue of depreciation disallowance was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification regarding services to non-members.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, disallowed 6% of the impugned purchases. This decision was based on the principle of taxing only the income component of disputed transactions to prevent revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the entire transaction cannot be taxed, but only the income component. Considering the assessee's low Gross Profit and Net Profit, and the fact that sales were not disputed, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which restricted the addition to 5% of the disputed purchases, considering it sufficient to cover potential revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation available on April 1, 2002 (AY 2002-03) is governed by Section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001. This amendment dispensed with the eight-year limit for carrying forward and setting off unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC wrongly assumed the assessee had settled the quantum assessment under the VSV scheme. The matter was therefore restored to the NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent investigation or disputing the assessee's sales. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases to tax the income component and avoid revenue leakage.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent investigation or disputing the assessee's sales. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 6% of the impugned purchases to tax the income component and avoid revenue leakage.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, allowing the additional grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for AY 2009-10 was dismissed as not pressed, and for AY 2012-13, it was dismissed based on consistency.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, allowing the additional grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for AY 2009-10 was dismissed as not pressed, and for AY 2012-13, it was dismissed based on consistency.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, allowing the additional grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for AY 2009-10 was dismissed as not pressed, and for AY 2012-13, it was dismissed based on consistency.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee is a mutual association, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. However, the issue of depreciation disallowance was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification regarding services to non-members.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, allowing the additional grounds of appeal for statistical purposes. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for AY 2009-10 was dismissed as not pressed, and for AY 2012-13, it was dismissed based on consistency.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowances. The decision was based on jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal precedents that allowed deductions under Section 10AA for trading activities and did not mandate the inclusion of interest on capital and remuneration to partners for calculating eligible profits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the Gross Profit at 10% considering the increased turnover and potential for increased costs. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For AY 2012-13, the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of penalty was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The partnership deed explicitly stated that partners would not charge interest on capital or receive remuneration, and this was permissible tax planning.
The Tribunal held that since the revision order under Section 263 was quashed by a prior ITAT order, all subsequent orders became void. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal had no merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the approval of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application. The parties were granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the Gross Profit at 10% considering the increased turnover and potential for increased costs. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. For AY 2012-13, the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of penalty was dismissed.