Loading ITAT cases…
109 orders · Page 2 of 3
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 was appealable before the CIT(A) and not the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal filed before the ITAT was not maintainable.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's petition for withdrawal of the appeal. As there was no objection from the Department, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were found to be not maintainable.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the ITAT's previous directions and erred in disallowing the accumulation claim. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding Form No. 10 and the audit to be satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in not following the ITAT's previous directions and in denying the exemption. The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to allow the exemption after considering the Form 10/10B filed by the assessee.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, and the assessees' cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the initial assessments were processed under Section 143(1), which is not an assessment, thus there was no change of opinion. The assessee was not primarily engaged in the business of running vehicles on hire, disentitling them to higher depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the allocation of husk consumption at 10% to the power plant, as claimed by the assessee, was justified. It followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to properly investigate the interest-free advances made to a partner from interest-bearing funds, deeming the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the Pr.CIT's direction to redo the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to examine crucial aspects of the assessee's return, including a claimed business loss, interest expenses, disallowance under Section 14A, and discrepancies in loan amounts. Consequently, the Pr.CIT's order to redo the assessment was upheld.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the initial assessments were processed under Section 143(1), which is not an assessment, thus there was no change of opinion. The assessee was not primarily engaged in the business of running vehicles on hire, disentitling them to higher depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the initial assessments were processed under Section 143(1), which is not an assessment, thus there was no change of opinion. The assessee was not primarily engaged in the business of running vehicles on hire, disentitling them to higher depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the initial assessments were processed under Section 143(1), which is not an assessment, thus there was no change of opinion. The assessee was not primarily engaged in the business of running vehicles on hire, disentitling them to higher depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the initial assessments were processed under Section 143(1), which is not an assessment, thus there was no change of opinion. The assessee was not primarily engaged in the business of running vehicles on hire, disentitling them to higher depreciation.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT held that appeals filed by the department with a tax effect of Rs. 50 lakhs and below are not maintainable, following a CBDT circular. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were found to be not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 278 days, finding sufficient and reasonable cause due to the death of the authorized representative. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the recipient had accounted for the interest income and filed returns, even if the income was exempt, the assessee had complied with the requirements for allowing the deduction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, there was no basis for disallowing expenditure under Section 14A. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's order invoking Section 263 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the disputed sale price, which was pending adjudication before higher authorities, did not accrue as revenue to the assessee. The assessee had rightly recognized income as per the price fixed by the state government.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 263 was unsustainable due to the unreasonable delay in its service on the assessee and the AO. The department failed to provide any valid explanation for this delay, making the order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not supported by sufficient evidence. The AO failed to conduct an independent inquiry into the property's value or provide evidence of 'on money' exchange beyond the seller's statement and cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the residential unit was constructed after the transfer of the capital asset and directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 54F. The Tribunal found the department's approach inconsistent regarding the cost of construction for assessment and deduction purposes.
The Tribunal held that invoking Section 153C without incriminating material found during a search is invalid, especially in a completed assessment. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was seized, the notice under Section 153C was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not strike off the irrelevant portion, making it vague. Consequently, the penalty order was cancelled.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding no evidence presented by the assessee to prove the boundary wall was temporary. The Assessing Officer's finding of it being an enduring asset was not controverted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. It further noted that the PCIT could not exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer's order was prima facie invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee trust was an old entity undertaking charitable activities, as evidenced by expenditures on education, cultural development, and health awareness. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s denial of registration solely on the grounds of mutual benefit was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for the non-compliance. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after considering a condonation application.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to provide tangible evidence to explain the source of the Rs. 64,00,000/- deposit. The explanation regarding a loan from a foreign national was not sufficiently substantiated.
The Tribunal held that Section 271C applies to both failure to deduct tax at source and failure to remit the deducted tax to the government account. The assessee's explanation for the delay was not considered satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not challenge the CIT's order under Section 263, which had thus attained finality. Since the assessee also failed to provide any explanation during the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer correctly followed the CIT's directions.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from depositing surplus funds with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Supreme Court's decision in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the exceptional circumstances. It further held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not clearly specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thus violating principles of natural justice.