Loading ITAT cases…
114 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal dismissed the claims for bad debts and loss on schemes due to lack of evidence proving crystallization of liability in the current year. However, it allowed the appeal regarding TDS short-deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling on bona fide wrong impression.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided an affidavit stating non-receipt of the CIT's letter, which was not rebutted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable as a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to his file for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable as a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to his file for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable as a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to his file for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable as a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to his file for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable as a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to his file for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable as a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to his file for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay were acceptable as a reasonable cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matters to his file for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision that the wife was not a co-owner and therefore not entitled to any share of the LTCG. It also found that the reassessment proceedings initiated against the husband were valid as there was tangible material to believe income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest income and other income earned by the assessee's sole STPI undertaking should be included in its business profits for computing the deduction under Section 10A, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for Section 80P deduction depends on whether the invested funds were the society's own funds or liabilities. Since the facts were not clear and no findings were made by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for Section 80P deduction depends on whether the invested funds were the society's own funds or liabilities. Since the facts were not clear and no findings were made by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the non-furnishing of the loan creditor's statement and the denial of cross-examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the statement and an opportunity for cross-examination.