Loading ITAT cases…
366 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that Section 54F is a beneficial provision and the assessee should not be denied deduction when the investment was made within the time limit, even if construction was delayed by the developer.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the department failed to provide crucial seized documents and evidence regarding the sellers or co-purchasers, and the assessee demonstrated the differential amount was paid to a confirming party, not as on-money to the seller.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is fully exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme is eligible for full exemption under Section 10(10B) as it constitutes retrenchment compensation. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the full exemption.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for full exemption under Section 10(10B). It also ruled that such claims can be entertained at the appellate stage even if not made in the original return, and that bona fide ignorance constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s finding of non-compliance was incorrect, as evidence showed the assessee had made submissions. The Tribunal also noted that the addition for cash deposits might be unjustified without considering the opening cash balance.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow exemption accordingly. The leave encashment was also to be considered as per statutory limits.
The Tribunal held that once the revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, the consequential assessment order loses its foundation and cannot survive independently. The mere filing of an appeal before the High Court does not render the ITAT's order inoperative without a stay.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation of acting as a commission agent was partially accepted, the entire deposit could not be treated as income. The addition was restricted to 0.25% of the total cash deposits, considering the assessee's role as a conduit.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow exemption accordingly. The leave encashment was also to be considered as per statutory limits.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal regarding the addition of donations was still pending, the penalty proceedings should be decided after the disposal of the quantum appeal. The impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct proper verification of the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits to be acceptable and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file, subject to the assessee paying a cost of INR 5,000. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with submissions and supporting documents.
The Tribunal noted that the allowability of the brought forward loss was allegedly accepted in AY 2020-21. To verify this, the matter was set aside to the Jurisdictional AO to check if the loss was allowed in AY 2020-21.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on incorrect information and the AO could not make additions on issues not forming the basis of the reopening. The assessment order was quashed as the reopening was found to be incorrect and the addition unjustified.