Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that FBT is leviable only when there is an actual contribution made by the employer to an approved superannuation fund. Merely making a provision does not attract FBT. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Textool Co. Ltd., which stated that the employer should not have control over the funds of an irrevocable trust created for employees' benefit. The direction given by the CIT was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee failed to file a return and did not respond to notices. The Tribunal confirmed that the bank accounts belonged to the assessee and the cash deposits were unexplained income.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest expenses. It found that the assessee failed to establish the commercial expediency of advancing interest-free loans to the director, and the reliance on the S.A. Builders case was misplaced.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal decided that the assessee's activities constituted development of infrastructure facilities, entitling it to deduction under Section 80IA(4). Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) related to the disallowed deduction were also quashed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the underlying issue was resolved by the Assessing Officer, the appeal was no longer necessary.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271E is not permissible in the absence of a regular assessment framed against the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment on identical facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances related to amortization of premium, deposits written off, impact fee, and investment written off. The Tribunal found that these issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case and by coordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271E is not permissible in the absence of a regular assessment framed against the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment on identical facts.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for written-off irrecoverable deposits as business loss. It remanded issues related to professional charges for project appraisal and due diligence to the AO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance for dead stock expenses was dismissed, and the disallowance under Section 14A was allowed.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a final opportunity to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the investment transactions, considering the affidavits and undertakings provided by the investors.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for a final opportunity to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the investment transactions, considering the affidavits and undertakings provided by the investors.
The Tribunal held that a portion of the agricultural income deposit should be accepted, and the remaining amount treated as income from other sources. For the share trading deposits, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of several disallowances. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the initial claim was an inadvertent mistake.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed a legal heir and had received a share of the sale consideration. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gain based on the calculation made in a similar case of another co-owner.
The Tribunal held that mere difference between declared income and assessed income does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The revenue failed to provide evidence that the information in the return was false or erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D is not automatic and can be waived under Section 273B if there is a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a genuine business need to meet urgent requirements for labor and tax payments, and the source of funds was not in doubt.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1276 days, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on each assessee, considering the subsequent developments in their quantum appeals. The matter was then remitted back to the AO for passing a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271E is not permissible in the absence of a regular assessment framed against the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment on identical facts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271E is not permissible in the absence of a regular assessment framed against the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment on identical facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the facts were identical to previous years where the ITAT had directed the use of TNMM. The Revenue failed to provide any distinguishing features or contrary decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that late payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, even if made before filing the return, is not eligible for deduction. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment applications, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC was against the assessee. However, since the matter regarding PF & ESIC was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal set aside the appeals to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the Supreme Court's outcome.
The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC was against the assessee. However, since the issue regarding PF & ESIC is pending before the Supreme Court, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the Supreme Court's outcome.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to the death of the assessee, which constituted a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not leviable, and the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 273B.
The tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from co-operative banks. However, interest income from nationalized banks is not eligible for such deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the applicability of the CBDT circular on tax effect thresholds. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered against the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court's decision. However, it allowed the assessee to revive the appeal if the Supreme Court reverses the High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from co-operative banks, but not from nationalized banks. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) for basic exemption on income not covered by other clauses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel conceded the matter based on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court and decided to set aside the matter to the AO to await the Supreme Court's outcome.
The tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, interest income earned from nationalized banks is not eligible for such deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the 10-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee's claim of compensation for agricultural land acquisition was plausible. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.