Loading ITAT cases…
211 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the purchase of land and construction of a building are necessary for establishing and undertaking charitable activities. The CIT(E) did not bring sufficient material on record to prove the activities were non-genuine or non-charitable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the assessment orders were dispatched within the limitation period and that the service on an unrelated third party was invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed barred by limitation and void.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the assessment orders were dispatched within the limitation period and that the service on an unrelated third party was invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed barred by limitation and void.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the assessment orders were dispatched within the limitation period and that the service on an unrelated third party was invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed barred by limitation and void.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment order hinges on whether it was validly issued and served within the statutory time limit. The crucial evidence, such as a proper dispatch register and a complete speed post record with all necessary details, was missing, casting doubt on the department's claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as notices were not sent to the provided email address and were instead issued on the ITBA portal.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove the assessment orders were dispatched within the limitation period and that the service on an unrelated third party was invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed barred by limitation and void.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not properly served on the assessee as it was sent to a wrong address. Therefore, the assessment order was barred by limitation and not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) due to late filing, the income to be taxed should be the net profit after allowing all allowable costs, not the gross interest income. The case was remitted to the AO for verification of net profit.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) due to late filing, the taxable income should be the net profit after considering all expenses. The gross interest income should not be taxed as is.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of land and construction of a building are necessary for establishing and undertaking charitable activities. The CIT(E) did not bring sufficient material on record to prove the activities were non-genuine or non-charitable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.