Loading ITAT cases…
288 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal held that TDRs are capital assets and the consideration received from their sale is taxable as capital gains. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument of parity with his brother's assessment, stating that an error in one assessment does not bind the Revenue. However, in the interest of justice, the AO was directed to compute capital gains after reducing the cost of acquisition attributable to the land exchanged.
The Tribunal held that the retrenchment compensation received by BSNL employees is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), including the enhanced limit. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the retrenchment compensation received by BSNL employees is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), including the enhanced limit. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds challenging the disallowance of deduction, which had attained finality in the earlier round of litigation before the CIT(A), were not sustainable. The AO's order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order was found to be in order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's reasonable cause and the need for substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the investigation report without independent application of mind by the AO. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's persistent non-appearance and failure to furnish evidence, despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1)(a) as the actual financial transactions related to the assessee did not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the retrenchment compensation received by BSNL employees is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), including the enhanced limit. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the retrenchment compensation received by BSNL employees is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), including the enhanced limit. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's medical reasons sufficient. It held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's professional and rental receipts, and substantial cash withdrawals from the bank, setting aside the addition.
The Tribunal held that the retrenchment compensation received by BSNL employees is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), including the enhanced limit. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds challenging the disallowance of deduction, which had attained finality in the earlier round of litigation before the CIT(A), were not sustainable. The AO's order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order was found to be in order.
The Tribunal held that the retrenchment compensation received by BSNL employees is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), including the enhanced limit. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the retrenchment compensation received by BSNL employees is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and that the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), including the enhanced limit. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's financial hardship and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) required detailed verification and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from commercial properties, as per the company's MOA and past practice accepted by the department, should be treated as business income. The issue of contractual payments was also remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Additionally, the assessment for AY 2018-19 was incorrectly made under section 143(3) instead of section 153C.
The Tribunal held that a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Additionally, the assessment for AY 2018-19 was incorrectly made under section 143(3) instead of section 153C.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's financial hardship and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) required detailed verification and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's financial hardship and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) required detailed verification and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, finding that the assessee's explanation could not be rejected solely on the improbability of retaining cash. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining all evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's bona fide belief and subsequent discovery of a favorable legal position. The Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 10(10B) for the VRS compensation.
The Tribunal held that a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Additionally, the assessment for AY 2018-19 was incorrectly made under section 143(3) instead of section 153C.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to bona fide reasons. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's tax residency and tax paid in Korea to determine eligibility for DTAA benefits.
The Tribunal held that a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Additionally, the assessment for AY 2018-19 was incorrectly made under section 143(3) instead of section 153C.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal allowed the exemption for ex-gratia compensation under Section 10(10B) and leave encashment under Section 10(10AA).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) for the retrenchment compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme. The dismissal orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that a common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the entire assessment proceedings, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Additionally, the assessment for AY 2018-19 was incorrectly made under section 143(3) instead of section 153C.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal allowed the exemption for ex-gratia compensation under Section 10(10B) and leave encashment under Section 10(10AA).
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal allowed the exemption for ex-gratia compensation under Section 10(10B) and leave encashment under Section 10(10AA).
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bona fide and reasonable. The Tribunal allowed the exemption for ex-gratia compensation under Section 10(10B) and leave encashment under Section 10(10AA).
The Tribunal held that the rental income from commercial properties should be treated as business income, especially when the company's MOA permits this and it was accepted in prior years. The issue of contractual payments was also remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a bona fide procedural misunderstanding. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits regarding the disallowance of Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and held that the agricultural land sold was situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits and distance, thus not a capital asset. Consequently, the gain from its sale was not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order cannot stand independently as it is consequential to the quantum addition. Since the quantum appeal was remitted for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeal must also be decided based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 154 to disallow a deduction that was allowed after a detailed scrutiny assessment. The issue was considered debatable and not an error apparent from the record, making rectification under Section 154 impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the application for permanent registration was premature as the trust had not commenced its activities. Therefore, the rejection by the CIT(E) on grounds of lack of genuineness was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that while interest income from co-operative banks is generally not deductible under Section 80P(2)(d), the issue of whether the recipient was a co-operative society or a co-operative bank needed further verification. It also held that if the interest income is taxed as income from other sources, proportionate expenses for earning such income should be allowed under Section 57.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the cash deposits, representing loan recoveries, were adequately explained by the assessee and deposited into bank accounts. The addition under Section 68 was deemed unwarranted as it would amount to double taxation, and the AO's reasoning for the addition was contradictory.
The Tribunal condoned the 44-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessment under Section 143(1) had not properly considered the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of cash deposits from accumulated agricultural income over previous years. The authorities below had made assumptions without contrary material.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding good cause for their non-submission earlier. However, since the lower authorities had not examined these documents and the assessee could not properly represent its case, the Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while interest income from co-operative banks is generally not deductible under Section 80P(2)(d), the issue of whether the recipient was a co-operative society or a co-operative bank needed further verification. It also held that if the interest income is taxed as income from other sources, proportionate expenses for earning such income should be allowed under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of cash sales solely based on the statement of one purchaser, without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, was a violation of natural justice. The issue of cash sales was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delays and entertained the appeals on merits. It further ruled that the retrenchment compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), following various coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delays and entertained the appeals on merits. It further ruled that the retrenchment compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), following various coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delays and entertained the appeals on merits. It further ruled that the retrenchment compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), following various coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delays and entertained the appeals on merits. It further ruled that the retrenchment compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), following various coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delays and entertained the appeals on merits. It further ruled that the retrenchment compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) and the entire leave encashment is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA), following various coordinate bench decisions.