Loading ITAT cases…
212 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) on the legal aspect that TDS was not required on interest paid to members by a co-operative bank before June 1, 2015. However, it remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to examine the factual aspect of whether the recipients of interest were indeed 'members' as per the definition.
For assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO before deciding the appeal, especially since the assessment was made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
For assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO before deciding the appeal, especially since the assessment was made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
For assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO before deciding the appeal, especially since the assessment was made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
For assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) should have obtained a remand report from the AO before deciding the appeal, especially since the assessment was made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that profits of STPI units must be computed on a standalone basis, and losses from other units cannot be set off against them for Section 10A deduction, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Yokogawa India Ltd. It also held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A computation, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that investments made in the new property, including improvements, are eligible for exemption under Section 54F if they are made within the time limit prescribed under Section 139(4) of the Act. The issue regarding one invoice was remanded for verification.
The CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty under Section 271AAA, holding that the assessee had admitted undisclosed income, paid taxes, and the explanation offered, though difficult to prove, was not found to be wrong by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the mere delay in submitting the ITR-V does not invalidate the return for the purpose of carrying forward losses. Once the return is electronically filed within the due date, the subsequent submission of ITR-V, even if delayed, is a procedural formality.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(7) applies only to provisions, not actual payments. Following various High Court and ITAT decisions, actual payments to gratuity funds, even if unapproved, are allowable under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if there is an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income in the year in question, the disallowance was uncalled for.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had rightly levied and confirmed the penalty. No infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order upholding the penalty.